Installation of a driveway and steps and the conversion of an existing garage to a habitable room

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 March 2019 by D Hartley BA (Hons) MTP MBA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 20 March 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/C3240/D/19/3219745 7 Lydbury Close, Stirchley, Telford TF3 1RH • 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 Ms Gayner Hann against the decision of Telford and Wrekin Council. • The application Ref TWC/2018/0743, dated 4 September 2018, was refused by notice dated 22 November 2018. • The development proposed is the installation of a driveway and steps and the conversion of an existing garage to a habitable room. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. I have taken the description of development from the Council’s refusal notice as this more precisely describes the appeal proposal. Whilst the description of development includes the conversion of an existing garage to a habitable room, the Council has stated that “the garage conversion only requires consent as the height of the roof has been altered slightly”. 3. The development as shown on the submitted plans has already been completed apart from the erection of railings around the driveway. Main Issues 4. The main issues are (i) the effect of the driveway and the alterations to the former garage on the character and appearance of the area and (ii) whether there is adequate on-site car parking. Reasons Character and appearance 5. The appeal site comprises a linked-detached dwellinghouse and is positioned within a cul-de-sac. The appeal development includes the raising of a former sloping driveway so that it is level with the abutting highway. In addition, the former garage has been converted including an increase in the height of the former flat roof and some fenestration alterations. 6. As part of my site visit, I was able to consider the raised driveway in the context of the immediate street-scene. Owing to the gradient of the driveway, I consider that it significantly detracts from the character and appearance of Appeal Decision APP/C3240/D/19/3219745 2 Lydbury Close where the other driveways to the front of the properties are sloping. In particular, the driveways to the immediately neighbouring properties slope downwards towards the lower dwellinghouses. In this context, the appeal driveway looks incongruous and out of place. 7. In addition to the above, I noted on my site visit that the gardens and driveways to the front of the dwellinghouses in this cul-de-sac are mainly open and devoid of built structures. This ensures that there is some open space within the cul-de-sac in what is otherwise a relatively built up and tight knit residential environment. By way of contrast, the appeal driveway includes retaining brick walls and there are steps leading down to the front door. Furthermore, the submitted plans show that railings would be erected around the driveway, although precise details are not before me. Overall, the development would appear as a dominant and discordant addition to the front of this dwellinghouse at odds with the aforementioned sense of open space that exists to the front of most of the dwellinghouses. 8. On its own, the garage conversion is acceptable. The increase in the height of the former garage roof is not significant. However, the alterations to the front of the former garage, when considered in conjunction with the driveway alterations and its associated development, have the overall effect of making this property look significantly different from the others in the street. Indeed, most of the other properties in this street have garages that have not been altered. When considered as a whole, the development as shown on the submitted plans would cause substantial harm to the character and appearance of the area, contrary to the prevailing uniformity of appearance that predominates to the front of the dwellinghouses in this part of Lydbury Close. 9. For the collective reasons outlined above, I conclude that the development would not accord with the design aims of Policies BE1 and BE2 of the adopted Telford and Wrekin Local Plan 2018 (LP) and paragraph 127 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019 (the Framework). I acknowledge that the appellant has previously injured herself owing to the steepness of the former driveway, but this does not in itself justify allowing harmful development. Car parking 10. Whilst I do accept that the conversion of the garage has led to the loss of a space to park a vehicle, the evidence before me suggests that use of the former garage as a habitable room would not in itself have required planning permission. In this context, and notwithstanding the Council’s view that two car parking spaces should be provided on-site, I do not consider that it would be reasonable to refuse planning permission simply because two car parking spaces are not available on-site. In reaching this view, I do however acknowledge some conflict with the Council’s car parking requirements (Appendix F of the LP) which would normally require two car parking spaces on-site for a property of this type. 11. As part of my site visit, I was able to see that a vehicle was parked on the driveaway. Both the Council and the appellant agreed on site that this space was 4.7 metres in length. On the site visit, the Council pointed out that the plans did not reflect what was on site in so far that the scaled off driveway length was much shorter than the driveway that had been formed to the front of the property. Appeal Decision APP/C3240/D/19/3219745 3 12. I have determined this appeal on the basis of the driveway dimensions that were agreed by the main parties on my site visit. Had this been the only issue, then I would have obtained further clarification from the parties about the accuracy of the plans relative to what is on the site now. 13. The vehicle parked on the driveway on my site visit did not overhang the highway, although the overall space was tight and the vehicle was parked in very close proximity to the window of the garage conversion. The vehicle parked on the drive was a “SUV” type (i.e. Ford Kuga): it could not reasonable be said that this was a small car. Whilst at 4.7 metres the driveway is on the margins of acceptability in terms overall length, I am satisfied that it could be used for the parking of the vast majority of private motor vehicles without any overhanging of the highway. 14. In reaching the above view, I have also considered the position of the retaining walls and the proposed railings (not yet erected). I do accept that in this respect the driveway is/would be tight, particularly in terms of being able to easily open car doors. However, again this is not a matter that would in itself justify refusing planning permission: I consider that despite these limitations the driveway would continue to be used by existing and future occupiers of the property and hence that there would not be any significant on-street car parking issues arising out of the appeal development. 15. Based on what I was able to see on my site visit, and taking into account the undisputed point that the original garage could have been converted to ancillary accommodation without the need for planning permission, I conclude that the appeal development does not materially conflict with the car parking and traffic management aims of Policies BE2, C5 and Appendix F of the LP and the Framework. I acknowledge that there does appear to be some dispute between the main parties in terms of the driveway that is on site now and the submitted plans. However, it has not been necessary for me to pursue this matter further, including if necessary a consideration as to whether any inaccuracies could have reasonably been rectified, as the appeal is being dismissed for character and appearance reasons. Other Matters 16. I note that there has previously been a dispute between the appellant and the occupiers of No 5 Lydbury Close in terms of the removal of a tree. I also acknowledge the comments made by other interested parties about alleged breaches of the deeds of the property. However, these are private/civil matters and are not therefore relevant to the determination of this appeal. 17. I acknowledge the comments made by other interested parties about the effect of the driveway on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties and in particular No 9 Lydbury Close. The formation of the new driveway has facilitated the parking of a vehicle at a higher level than was previously the case. Taking into account the height of the driveway, the retaining walls, the parking of a vehicle and the proposed erection of railings, I do consider that some harm has/would be caused to the occupiers of No 9 Lydburn Close when the development and an associated vehicle is viewed from the front window of this adjacent dwellinghouse. The resultant enclosing impact adds to the harm that I have identified in respect of character and appearance issues. Appeal Decision APP/C3240/D/19/3219745 4 18. The appellant states that there was flooding to the property in 2015 when the previous driveway was in place. The appellant states that the appeal driveway would ensure that such flooding events do not occur again. I acknowledge that the development may have minimised the risk of surface water flooding issues to the property. However, I do not know if there would have been other options available to the appellant to deal with surface water run off issues prior to the installation of the driveway and steps. In any event, the harm that I have identified in terms of character and appearance issues is significant. Previous surface water flooding events do not alter or outweigh my conclusion on this main issue. Conclusion 19. For the reason given above, and taking into account all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. D Hartley INSPECTOR