Appeal Decision
The Planning Inspectorate
4/11 Eagle Wing
Temple Quay House
2 The Square
Hearing held on 7 February 2008
Temple Quay
Bristol BS1 6PN
by A S Newman
0117 372 6372
BA MA DipTP MRTPI
email:[email address].g
ov.uk
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date:
for Communities and Local Government
31 March 2008
Appeal Ref: APP/X2220/A/07/2040720
Field End, 9 Granville Road, Walmer, CT14 7LU
•
The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant outline planning permission.
•
The appeal is made by M F Estates against the decision of Dover District Council.
•
The application Ref DOV/07/00038, dated 8 January 2007, was refused by notice dated
6 March 2007.
•
The development proposed is erection of a two-storey building containing nine flats,
with revised access, car and cycle parking following demolition of existing building.
Decision
I dismiss the appeal.
Appraisal
1.
In this outline application, access, scale and layout are to be considered at
this stage. The submitted plan is illustrative as regards the other details shown.
2.
I consider that the main issues are firstly the effect on the character and
appearance of the area, secondly the effect on living conditions for neighbouring
residents, and thirdly whether adequate car parking would be provided.
3.
In the Kent and Medway Structure Plan, policy QL1 requires all development
to be well designed and of high quality, responding positively to the local
surroundings. Policy DD1 of the Dover Local Plan requires amongst other matters
that development should be acceptable in terms of the spatial and visual character
of the surrounding area.
4.
On the first issue, in addition to the policies mentioned above I have given
some weight to the Walmer Design Statement. It was prepared with the support of
the Parish Council, and although it is not supplementary planning guidance, it has
been adopted, following public consultation and amendment, by the District Council
as a material consideration in determining planning applications. Of course such a
document concentrates on the local perspective, and national planning require-
ments such as making more efficient use of urban land must also be taken into
account, but it does provide a useful analysis of character. It divides Walmer into
“character areas” and the appeal site is in the Liverpool Road area. It is “an area
of substantial, individually designed houses set amongst trees and large gardens”.
That is an apt description of the appeal site and its neighbours.
Appeal Decision APP/X2220/A/07/2040720
5.
The appellant points out that the existing house at the appeal site is of
undistinguished design, particularly the flat roofed 2-storey side extension, and
does not make good use of its plot. The proposed building would better reflect the
character of the road. In scale and design detail, it would be comparable to houses
such as No 10 opposite, which is photographed in the Design Statement as an
example of a “substantial property”. Granville Road has seen significant
development of varying styles over the years, including the new culs-de sac at
Knoll Place and Willingdon Place.
6.
The difficulty with this approach is that despite these changes, Granville Road
retains the character described in the Design Guide. This would be the first
redevelopment of a plot to provide flats. That is not necessarily an objection in
itself. The proposed building, as illustrated, might just about pass as a large house
and further attention could be given to details of design at the reserved matters
stage. However it is also proposed to lay out most of the front garden, apart from
corners each side, to provide 14 car parking spaces. The building would be set
further back than the existing house to accommodate this.
7.
The appellant says that the car park would be screened by boundary fencing
and landscaping, but the change in character would still be obvious from the road,
such as through the site entrance. To my mind, this together with the size of
building would stand out as a discordant feature in the road. The proposal would
harm the character and appearance of the area without being on a large enough
scale to establish its own character. Although a few houses in Granville Road have
laid out much of their front garden for parking, that is not generally a feature of
this area and is quite different from the substantial, formally laid out car park
proposed here. I consider that this harm outweighs, at this location, the benefit
that would accrue from securing housing gain in the urban area.
8.
Turning to the issue of living conditions, as described above the building
would be set further back than the existing house to accommodate the car park in
front. The side wall would be about 1 m further from the side of No 11 but would
extend more than 4 m further back, with a further projection of some 4.5 m in the
middle part of the building. I viewed the site from inside No 11 and its garden and
noted that at ground level shrubs along the boundary would partly screen the
building. From bedrooms there would be an oblique view of the building but the
principal attractive outlook down the garden to the Marke Wood recreation ground
would be unaffected. However the bulk of building and the degree of projection
behind the back of No 11 would be perceived as oppressive and in my view that is
a further objection to the project. Loss of sunlight would be limited to late
evenings in the summer and would not be a significant objection in itself.
9.
Occupiers of No 11 also draw attention to the view they would have of the
proposed car park from the front of the house. I consider that is only a valid
objection as part of the general harm to the street scene already identified. It is
said that use of the car park would generate noise and disturbance, but one would
expect some traffic noise in front of the house anyway. Another concern is over
the potential use of the communal rear garden, but just as much disturbance could
arise if the existing house at No 9 were occupied by a large family.
10. The main house at No 7 is sited about 16 m from the boundary with No 9,
though there is also a conservatory at the side. There is considerable tree and
shrub planting along the boundary. Although the occupier drew my attention to
2
Appeal Decision APP/X2220/A/07/2040720
the principal windows along the side of the house, the proposed flats would be far
enough away, and seen through the trees, such that there would not be significant
harm from the effect on outlook. There would be some loss of morning sunlight
through the trees, as the flats would be roughly east-south-east of No 7. But No 7
would retain a high standard of daylight and sunlight, so I would not have found
that to be a decisive objection. I conclude that the proposal would not have an
unacceptably adverse impact on No 7.
11. Occupiers of No 10 and other houses opposite refer to the change in outlook
that they would experience. I do not consider that to be a convincing objection.
The relationship would be a normal one of facing buildings across the road. The
point is only valid as part of the general impact on the street scene already
examined.
12. Turning to the question of car parking, at the hearing the appellant confirmed
that the flats are intended to be 6 two-bedroom and 3 one-bedroom, and that a
condition specifying flats sizes would be acceptable. The maximum parking
requirement set by supplementary planning guidance to the Structure Plan would
then be 15 spaces, compared to 14 proposed. On that basis the Council accepted
at the hearing that this shortfall of one space would not justify refusal of planning
permission. I agree with that. Local residents maintained an objection on this
ground, but this is an urban site with reasonably good access on foot, by cycle and
by bus to local shops and services. Government policy is to encourage use of such
modes and reduce dependence on the private car. There would be 1.5 parking
spaces per flat and I am satisfied that that would be fully adequate.
Conclusion
13. In my opinion the decisive objection to this scheme is the discordant impact
on the established street scene of the proposed flats, and in particular the front car
parking. That would have a harmful effect on the character of the area which
would be contrary to the development plan policies referred to and which
outweighs the general policy support for increased urban densities. I have also
identified some harm to living conditions for neighbouring occupiers. For these
reasons and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal
should be dismissed. My formal decision is set out above.
Andrew S Newman Inspector
3
Appeal Decision APP/X2220/A/07/2040720
Appearances
For the local planning authority:
Mr M Goddard BA DipTP DMS
Goddard Hester, c/o Dover District Council
MRTPI
Planning Dept, Council Offices, White Cliffs
Business Park, Dover, Kent, CT16 3PJ
For the appellant:
Mr M Simmonds BA DMS MRTPI Kent Planning, Stoneleigh House, The Tram
Road, Folkestone, Kent, CT20 1QR
Mr M Febery
Director, MF Estates
Mr K Barker AMASI ICIOB
Keith Barker Design, The Old Auction Rooms,
Marine Walk Street, Hythe, Kent, CT21 5NW
Interested persons:
Mr J Peall JP BTP MRTPI
J P Planning Consultants, Marlborough, Hillcrest
Road, Kingsdown, Kent, CT14 8DZ (representing
Mr & Mrs Norman, Mr and Mrs Sturt and Dr
Pond)
Mr R Sturt
7 Granville Road, Walmer, Kent, CT14 7LU
Mrs K Norman
11 Granville Road, Walmer, Kent, CT14 7LU
Mr F Grove
4 Granville Road, Walmer, Kent, CT14 7LU
Dr J Pond
10 Granville Road, Walmer, Kent, CT14 7LU
Mr J Pond
10 Granville Road, Walmer, Kent, CT14 7LU
Mrs J M Stephens
20 Granville Road, Walmer, Kent, CT14 7LS
Documents submitted at the hearing:
1.
List of persons present at the hearing.
2.
Letter of notification and list of addresses to whom it was sent.
3.
Committee report and photographs concerning 19 Granville Road,
submitted by the appellant.
4.
Correspondence concerning restrictive covenant, submitted by Mr Sturt.
Plans submitted at the hearing:
A. Site survey plan with existing and proposed buildings superimposed.
Photographs submitted at the hearing:
1.
Photograph submitted by Mr Sturt.
4
