Lowered curb to match with neighboring property to provide access to front of property. There is one parking space at the rear of the property but this is inaccessible for a wheelchair user. Part of the front garden will be taken up and replaced with gravel to provide direct parking and path to front door

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 10 July 2018 by C L Humphrey BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 17th July 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/H4505/D/18/3201049 65 King Oswald Drive, Stella, Blaydon NE21 4FD  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr David Burns against the decision of Gateshead Council.  The application Ref DC/17/01153/HHA, dated 19 October 2017, was refused by notice dated 26 January 2018.  The development proposed was originally described as ‘Lowered curb to match with neighboring property to provide access to front of property. There is one parking space at the rear of the property but this is inaccessible for a wheelchair user. Part of the front garden will be taken up and replaced with gravel to provide direct parking and path to front door.’ Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a vehicular access and hard surface at 65 King Oswald Drive, Stella, Blaydon NE21 4FD in accordance with the terms of the application Ref DC/17/01153/HHA dated 19 October 2017 and plans submitted with it subject to the following condition: (1) The development hereby permitted shall be removed and all materials brought onto the land for the purposes of such development shall be removed within 60 days of the date of failure to meet any one of the requirements set out in i) to iv) below: (i) Within 3 months of the date of this decision a scheme for hard and soft landscape works shall have been submitted for the written approval of the local planning authority and the scheme shall include a timetable for its implementation. (ii) If within 6 months of the date of this decision the local planning authority refuse to approve the scheme or fail to give a decision within the prescribed period, an appeal shall have been made to, and accepted as validly made by, the Secretary of State. (iii) If an appeal is made in pursuance of ii) above, that appeal shall have been finally determined and the submitted scheme shall have been approved by the Secretary of State. (iv) The approved scheme shall have been carried out and completed in accordance with the approved timetable. Upon implementation of the approved scheme specified in this condition, that scheme shall thereafter be retained. In the event of a legal challenge to this decision, or to a decision made pursuant to the procedure set out in this condition, the operation of the Appeal Decision APP/H4505/D/18/3201049 2 time limits specified in this condition will be suspended until that legal challenge has been finally determined. Procedural Matters 2. Notwithstanding the description of development set out in the banner heading above, which is taken from the application form, based upon the submitted evidence it is clear that the development involves the formation of a means of vehicular access to the highway and the provision within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse of a hard surface. The development would therefore be more appropriately described as a vehicular access and hard surface. This revised description would not prejudice the parties involved and so I have considered the appeal on that basis. 3. At the time of my site visit the development had commenced. Main Issues 4. The main issues are the effect of the development upon highway safety and the character and appearance of the area. Reasons Highway safety 5. The hard surface occupies the area between the front of the house and the back of the footway to the west of the path which leads to the front door. The adjacent property at 63 King Oswald Drive has a hard surfaced parking space to the front which is of a very similar overall depth, and I observed during my site visit that it is possible for a vehicle parked in that space to be wholly contained within the curtilage. Thus, if the entire length of the hard surfaced area was utilised, I see no reason why cars parked perpendicular to the road within the appeal property would be likely to overhang the footway and cause an obstruction to pedestrians. In any event, obstruction of the highway can be controlled via other legislation. 6. At the time of my site visit, which took place mid-afternoon on a weekday, traffic along King Oswald Drive was fairly light and speeds were low. Many properties fronting the road have vehicular accesses and drives to the front. Given the number and frequency of existing vehicular accesses along the road, drivers would be aware of the possibility that vehicles may manoeuvre in and out of the appeal site and would thus be vigilant. Similarly, pedestrians would be alert to the likelihood of vehicles entering and exiting the site and would exercise caution accordingly. Drivers seeking to manoeuvre in and out of the appeal site are unlikely to do so at speed. 7. I noted during my site visit that, on the inside of the bend just west of the appeal site, cars parked in the carriageway and planting and parking in front gardens limited openness and visibility. Thus, additional parking in the front garden of the appeal property would not worsen visibility for eastbound traffic. Visibility around the outside of the bend for vehicles travelling west would not be affected by the development. 8. Whilst the use of gravel would be likely to result in displacement onto the highway and thus potentially create an unsafe environment for pedestrians and cyclists, precise details of the hard surface materials could be controlled by condition to overcome this concern. Appeal Decision APP/H4505/D/18/3201049 3 9. Overall in respect of the first main issue I conclude that, subject to a condition to secure a suitable hard surface material, the development would not have a harmful effect upon highway safety and so would accord with the transport and wellbeing aims of Policies CS13 and CS14 of the Gateshead and Newcastle upon Tyne Core Strategy and Urban Core Plan (CSUCP) and the Gateshead Council Household Alterations and Extensions Supplementary Planning Document (HAESPD) Character and appearance 10. As many houses along the road have parking spaces within the front gardens the development is not uncharacteristic of the area. Moreover, the garden is wide and not entirely given over to hard surfacing. A scheme to ensure the use of suitable materials and supplementary soft landscaping could be secured by condition. 11. Therefore, with regard to the second main issue and subject to the condition outlined above, I conclude that the development would not have a harmful effect upon the character and appearance of the area and would accord with the design aims of CSUCP Policy CS15, Gateshead Unitary Development Plan Policy ENV3 and the HAESPD. Conditions 12. The purpose of condition 1 is to require the appellant to comply with a strict timetable for dealing with details of hard and soft landscape works which needs to be addressed in order to make the development acceptable. The condition is drafted in this form because, unlike an application for planning permission for development yet to commence, in the case of a retrospective grant of permission it is not possible to use a negatively worded condition precedent to secure the subsequent approval and implementation of the outstanding detailed matters because the development has already started. The condition therefore provides for the loss of the effective benefit of the grant of planning permission where the detailed matters in question are not submitted for approval during the time set by the condition, approved either by the local planning authority or by the Secretary of State on appeal, and then implemented in accordance with an approved timetable. Should the requirements of the condition not be met in line with the strict timetable, then the planning permission falls away. Conclusion 13. For the reasons set out above, and having had regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. CL Humphrey INSPECTOR