34 Haseldine Meadows, HATFIELD, AL10 8HB

34 Haseldine Meadows, HATFIELD, AL10 8HB — Welwyn Hatfield Council — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 8 February 2022 by R Sabu BA(Hons), MA, BArch, PgDip, RIBA, ARB an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 15th February 2022 Appeal Ref: APP/C1950/W/21/3280027 34 Haseldine Meadows, Hatfield AL10 8HB • 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 Vasile Tanasa against the decision of Welwyn Hatfield Council. • The application Ref 6/2021/1543/FULL, dated 28 April 2021, was refused by notice dated 13 July 2021. • The development proposed is described as, ‘vehicle hardstanding for x2 cars’. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the area; and • highway safety. Reasons Character and appearance 3. The area surrounding the appeal site is primarily characterised by two storey terraced dwellings and grass verges that result in an attractive character and appearance. 4. The proposed driveway lies on a curved stretch of grassed area intersected by narrow footpaths that lead from the pavement to a number of dwellings.

34 Haseldine Meadows, HATFIELD, AL10 8HB — Welwyn Hatfield Council — Appeal Decision Given its size, green and largely uninterrupted nature across a number of dwellings, the grassed area provides a pleasant contribution to the character of the area. While a number of other properties in the area have driveways, the stretch of grass on which the site lies is not disrupted by large areas of car parking. 5. The proposal would result in the change of use of part of the grassed area to a driveway with hardstanding. As such it would result in the loss of a significant part of the grassed area and would be used to park two cars. Therefore, despite it being on an area of reduced width, the scheme would harmfully interrupt the green aspect of the locality and would adversely affect the pleasant character and appearance of the area. 6. I acknowledge that the proposal aims to remove some on-street parking. However, the harm caused by the proposal to the character of the area would https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

34 Haseldine Meadows, HATFIELD, AL10 8HB — Welwyn Hatfield Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/C1950/W/21/3280027 override any removal of on-street parking since it would be the only property in the terrace to disrupt the stretch of grassed area and introduce parked vehicles in its place. While I note the evidence regarding the times when cars would be likely to be parked on the proposed driveway, the proposal would nevertheless enable the parking of cars at any time. Moreover, there is little substantial evidence before me to demonstrate that there is a shortage of on-street parking in the area. As such, this point has not altered my finding on this main issue. 7. I note the driveway at No 22 Haseldine Meadows. However, since it is adjacent to the flank elevation of a neighbouring house, and a smaller triangular shaped grassed area, this driveway is not directly comparable to this appeal. 8. A number of the properties at Nos 21 and 23, Nos 51 to 61 and Nos 71 to 81 Haseldine Meadows also have driveways. However, since they on the opposite side of the curved road and some are a distance from the site, they are not directly comparable with this appeal. 9. I also note the driveways at No 42 Maryland and No 87 Haseldine Meadows.

34 Haseldine Meadows, HATFIELD, AL10 8HB — Welwyn Hatfield Council — Appeal Decision However, since they are some distance from the appeal site, they are also not directly comparable to this appeal. 10. I also acknowledge the evidence regarding the scheme setting a precedent for future development. However, in any event, each case must be determined on its own merits and these driveways have not altered my finding on this main issue. 11. Consequently, the proposed development would result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area. Therefore, it would conflict with Policies GBSP2, D1, D2 and D8 of the Welwyn Hatfield District Plan 2005 Adopted April 2005 (DP) which together seek high design and require developments to enhance and respect the character of their area. The scheme would also conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) in this respect. Highway safety 12. The proposed width of the dropped kerb would not meet the requirements of the Highway Authority which seek a wider dropped kerb. In addition, there is limited information regarding visibility splays before me to demonstrate that adequate visibility could be achieved given the curve in the road. 13. I acknowledge the evidence regarding communication with the Council.

34 Haseldine Meadows, HATFIELD, AL10 8HB — Welwyn Hatfield Council — Appeal Decision However, even if a wider dropped kerb had been proposed, given the limited space of the driveway, it is likely that vehicles would be required to either reverse into the space or reverse out. In addition, the existing on street parking would further reduce the visibility to and from the access as well as the usable width of the road for such manoeuvres. As such, there has not been a demonstration that the proposal would not result in an increased risk of collisions. 14. Consequently, the proposed development would cause an unacceptable impact on highway safety. Therefore, it would conflict with DP Policy D1 which seeks high quality development. The proposal would also conflict with the Framework in this particular respect. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

34 Haseldine Meadows, HATFIELD, AL10 8HB — Welwyn Hatfield Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/C1950/W/21/3280027 Other Matter 15. While I note the evidence regarding other development relating to a number of garages in the wider area, limited further details are before me such that this matter has not altered my overall decision. Conclusion 16. For the reasons given above, the proposed development would conflict with the development plan as a whole and in the absence of material considerations to indicate otherwise, the appeal is dismissed.

34 Haseldine Meadows, HATFIELD, AL10 8HB — Welwyn Hatfield Council — R Sabu INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3