Appeal 3270452

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a vehicular crossover and hardstanding at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref: DC/20/117630, dated 21 July 2020, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in strict accordance with the following approved drawings: Location Plan; 158/A4/01 [name] and Elevation; 158/A4/01 [name] and Elevation.

No development shall commence on site until there shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority a detailed scheme of hard and soft landscaping for the front garden. This shall include materials specifications and illustration of any external surfacing, boundary treatment, gates and planting. The development shall be implemented as approved and retained thereafter.

A new version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published in July 2021. The new Framework echoes and reinforces policy relevant to the main issues in this case.

The main issues in this case are: • Whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the [address] Conservation Area (CA); and • The effect of the proposal on parking capacity.

The CA is located in a mainly residential area bounded to the west by [address]. It includes a grid of residential streets to the south and green space to the north. From what I have read, and seen during my site visit, the CA’s significance lies in the traditional suburban townscape which reflects its evolution as a suburb from the nineteenth to the twentieth century.

The locality comprises a mix of mainly two-storey nineteenth and twentieth century dwellings. The appeal property comprises a two-storey dwelling within a terraced row, which appears to date from the Victorian period.

Front gardens in the locality range from traditional type planting to more hard surfaced spaces. Boundary treatments range from brick walls to hedging and shrubs. Driveways are prevalent in the locality. Some appear roughly constructed and give the front gardens an unattractively stark appearance. Other front gardens with driveways display a better balance and quality of hard and soft landscaping, which is more harmonious with the established suburban character. As such, the host row and its locality have an evolved character within the CA, with front gardens having a key influence.

The proposal would result in removal of pollarded lime trees at the front boundary, hardening of the front garden’s character and loss of the central alignment of the garden’s footpath. Nevertheless, as illustrated in the proposed plan and elevation drawing, the proposal includes hedging, compact garden trees and other planting which would help soften the appearance of the driveway. Also, the addition of a crossover and driveway would fit in with the evolved character of the locality, where driveways are prevalent.

Furthermore, while vegetation in front gardens and street trees contribute traditional verdant character to the streetscene, the existing pollarded line of trees along the inner face of the appeal site’s front garden boundary appears awkwardly truncated in comparison to the fuller and more mature form of street trees and other garden trees in the locality, while simultaneously substantially disrupting appreciation of the architectural detailing and character of the front elevation of the appeal building. Within this context, the proposal would enable visually more comfortably proportioned tree planting in the front garden which would better frame and reveal the architectural character of the appeal dwelling, while balancing soft and hard landscaped elements, the quality, including historically sympathetic character of which will be secured by a detailed landscape scheme through planning condition.

The above combination of factors would help the proposal fit in with the evolved front garden character of the locality, and better reveal the dwelling’s architectural character. While the proposal would not overall enhance the CA, and would thus not accord with the element of Policy 16 of the [name] (CS) which seeks the enhancement of conservation areas, the factors outlined above would ensure that the proposal would conserve the character and appearance of the CA and preserve its significance.

As such, the proposal would accord with Policy 15 of the CS, the conservation element of Policy 16 of the CS, and [name] 30, 31 and 36 of the Lewisham Development Management Local Plan (DMLP), and the guidance in the [name] and Extensions Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) which together seek to ensure that development complements local character and conserves the historic environment. Furthermore, the proposal would accord with the approach of the Framework, taking account of the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets, with great weight given to the asset’s conservation.

Given the assimilating factors identified and that each case is to be determined on its own merits, the proposal would not set an unwelcome precedent.

The proposed crossover would result in the loss of part of an on-street parking space. However, it would provide space for more than one car to park off the street at the existing dwelling.

Therefore, it would not significantly alter parking capacity in the neighbourhood. As such, it would not conflict with Policy 14 of the CS, DM Policy 29 of the DMLP and the guidance in the SPD which together seek to ensure appropriate parking capacity.

The conditions suggested by the Council have been considered against the tests of the Framework and advice provided by Planning Practice Guidance. They have been found to be reasonable and necessary in the circumstances of this case. I have made modest drafting changes for clarity. In addition to the standard commencement condition, a condition is necessary requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans, to provide certainty. A condition regarding landscaping and external materials is required to safeguard the character and appearance of the area.

The proposed development would adhere to the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations which outweigh this finding. Accordingly, for the reasons given, the appeal succeeds.