Demolition of single storey rear extension and detached garage; proposed single storey rear and two storey side extensions

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 16 August 2018 by F Rafiq BSc (Hons), MCD, MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 9th October 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/P2365/D/18/3206067 5 Carr House Lane, Wrightington, WN6 9SH  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 J Goulding against the decision of West Lancashire Borough Council.  The application Ref 2018/0333/FUL dated 23 March 2018, was refused by notice dated 17 May 2018.  The development proposed is the demolition of single storey rear extension and detached garage; proposed single storey rear and two storey side extensions. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the demolition of single storey rear extension and detached garage; proposed single storey rear and two storey side extensions at 5 Carr House Lane, Wrightington, WN6 9SH in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 2018/0333/FUL, dated 23 March 2018, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Drawing No: 155/PL/01/A. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. 4) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until two off road car parking spaces have been provided within the curtilage of the site. The parking spaces shall be formed of permeable construction or a porous surface, and be kept available at all times for the parking of vehicles. Procedural Matter 2. The description of development has been taken from the decision notice, as this more accurately describes the appeal proposal than the application form, or the similar description agreed between the Council and the Appellant during the course of the application. Appeal Decision APP/P2365/D/18/3206067 2 Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on highway safety, with regards to car parking arrangements. Reasons 4. The proposal includes the demolition of an existing garage and the construction of a two storey extension to the side of the dwelling and a single storey extension to the rear of the dwelling. The proposed side extension would incorporate a garage, but the Council have stated, with reference to the Manual for Streets, that the garage cannot be identified as a parking space, as it would not have an adequate internal width. My attention has also been drawn to the parking standards within Policy IF2 of the West Lancashire Local Plan (Local Plan), which for a dwelling with 2-3 bedrooms, state that two parking spaces are required. The Council have set out that following the development, there would only be sufficient provision for one vehicle at the front of the dwellinghouse. 5. The Appellant does not specifically dispute the recommended minimum dimensions for a garage, but has stated that two spaces can be provided at the front of the property as well as a space to the rear, as the garage is a drive through. At the time of my site visit, I was able to see that the front of the dwellinghouse contained hardstanding areas that would allow for two car parking spaces to be provided. The Council have also suggested a condition relating to the provision of two parking spaces within the curtilage, which demonstrates that they consider this level of parking provision can be provided. 6. As such, and whilst recognising that on-street parking would reduce the width of Carr House Lane, I consider that the development can provide sufficient off- road parking facilities to meet the needs of the development. I therefore conclude that the proposal would not have an unacceptable adverse effect on highway safety and there would be no conflict with Policies IF2 or GN3 of the Local Plan, which seek, amongst other matters, development that ensures that parking provision is made in line with standards set out. Conclusion 7. For the reasons given above and having taken into account all other matters raised, I conclude the appeal should be allowed. Conditions 8. The Council have suggested a number of conditions. In addition to the standard time condition, the condition requiring matching materials is necessary in the interests of the appearance of the area. A condition is also needed to secure compliance with the approved plans, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. 9. A number of conditions have been suggested in relation to the provision of parking spaces within the curtilage and in relation to ensuring there is a permeable surface. I consider it necessary for two parking spaces to be provided in the interests of highway safety for the reasons set out and for permeable surfacing to be utilised in order to ensure that the parking area is Appeal Decision APP/P2365/D/18/3206067 3 properly drained. The wording and structure of the suggested conditions have been amended without changing their overall. F Rafiq INSPECTOR