Agenda item

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) setting out an appeal against the refusal of Estate Management (EM) Consent for the retention of a new hardstanding surface which included an increase in size to create an additional car parking space.

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) setting out an appeal against the refusal of Estate Management (EM) Consent for the retention of a new hardstanding surface which included an increase in size to create an additional car parking space.

It was noted that No.59 was a two storey mid-terrace property located on the eastern side of Marsden Green. The properties within Marsden Green were of similar design with either a garage forward of the main house or a garage integrated into the main building. No. 59 is the latter and as a result benefits from an existing driveway.

This was an appeal against the refusal of retrospective Estate Management Scheme consent to retain a new block paved hardstanding surface upon the original driveway and for an increase in size across the front garden to create an additional parking space.  The new area of hardstanding incorporated this existing driveway and had been extended to the right to include an area that was previously soft landscaped garden. As a result, hardstanding covered approximately 77% of the front garden and would allow off street parking for three cars.

To support their appeal the appellant had submitted an appeal statement which discusses how Policy EM4 is interpreted and has provided twenty four examples of other properties with large hardstanding within the neighbourhood surrounding Marsden Green.

The appellant stated that within Policy EM4 (hard landscaping), proposals for new hard surfacing to a front garden is defined as alterations to soft green landscaping and that existing areas of hard landscaping should not be considered in the assessment of proposals for additional areas of hard surfacing. Policy EM4 states:

Proposals for hard surfacing, for the parking of private vehicles in front gardens will only be allowed where the works would retain an appropriate balance between hard and soft landscaping and do not result in the loss of any existing hedgerows or landscaping along the boundary, other than the minimum required to access the hard standing, that would be harmful to the amenities and values of the street scene in which it is located.

The appellant had submitted photographs of other homes within Marsden Green, Marsden Close, Springfields, Heather Road and Marsden Road, all within the locality of the application site, that have hardstandings that cover all or the majority of the front garden. Of the twenty four examples submitted, twenty one have no record of Estate Management Scheme consent being granted and three have Estate Management Scheme consent.

The three examples given of hardstandings that benefit from Estate Management Scheme consent have varying degrees of coverage but all are in excess of the preferred coverage:

•    43 Springfields – near total hardstanding coverage with front boundary hedgerow removed. Side boundary hedgerows retained. Received EMS consent in January 2016.

•    49 Springfields – large majority of the front covered with hardstanding with a small area of landscaping to the front corner. Small front hedge retained/established. Received EMS consent in August 2014.

•    51 Springfields – majority of the front covered with hardstanding with an area of lawn partially retained to one side. Approximately half of the front hedgerow has been retained. Received EMS consent in March 2017.

The application was refused on the 14 May 2021 for the following reason:

“Prior to the work the property benefitted from a good level of hardstanding that covered over half of the frontage. The increased area of hardstanding is considered excessive and has resulted in a harmful loss of soft green landscaping that is detrimental to the property and wider street scene. As a result the application fails to comply with Policy EM4 of the Estate Management Scheme.”

The key issue in the determination of the appeal was the impact the hardstanding has on the character and appearance of the appeal site and the surrounding area.

During discussion, the following points were raised:

•Members stated that car parking was a big problem in Marsden Close so it would help to have less cars parked on the street.

•Members noted that the property was near the end of the cul-de-sac where finding a parking space could be difficult.

•Members noted that the streetscene needed to be maintained as some of the roads and pavements were in poor condition.

•It was noted that the appellant would retain the hedge at the front of the property.

The Officer’s recommendation was to allow the appeal. It was proposed and seconded by Councillors L.Musk and N.Pace and

RESOLVED:

(unanimous)

Members allowed the appeal.