Appeal 3279688

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant states that the local planning authority failed to observe its obligations in relation to the application the subject of this appeal and that it failed to observe its time limit obligations. These are matters between the appellant and the local planning authority

In its reasons for refusal, the Council refers to the West Putney Conservation Area Appraisal. The appeal site is located in the [address] Estate Conservation Area and this is an area covered by the [address] Estate Conservation Area Appraisal.

The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the [address] Estate Conservation Area.

The appeal property is a two storey semi-detached dwelling. It is located in a residential area within the [address] Estate Conservation Area.

[address] Estate Conservation Area Appraisal states that the special character of the [address] Estate Conservation Area is derived from the carefully planned clusters of picturesque cottage-style homes and their front gardens with privet hedges set around green spaces and mature trees.

During my site visit, I observed the appeal property to comprise one of a number of brick-built semi-detached dwellings set back from the street behind a front garden area and privet hedge. I also noted that together, the uniform qualities of brick-built semi-detached and terraced dwellings, set back from the street behind hedgerows and garden areas and the presence of street trees, provide for a satisfying and attractive sense of rhythm, regularity, greenery and spaciousness.

Further to the above, I observed that the hedgerow and garden area to the front of the appeal property, like the areas to the front of nearby houses, makes a positive contribution to the [address] Estate Conservation Area’s attributes.

It is proposed to introduce a vehicle crossover, to provide for car parking in the garden area immediately in front of Number [site address] . This would involve the removal of an area of hedgerow and would significantly impact on the attractive uniform attributes of this part of [address], where the pavement does not have any crossovers. 10.As such, I find that the proposal would severely erode the identified qualities of the [address] Estate Conservation Area, not least the highly attractive sense of uniformity apparent in the area around the appeal property. 11.Whilst the appellant, in support of his case, draws attention to the presence of other crossovers elsewhere along [address], few of these are in the immediate vicinity of the appeal property. Indeed, the fact that the majority of nearby dwellings do not have such crossovers is a major contributor to the identified attributes of [address] Estate Conservation Area in this location. 12.Further to the above, during my site visit I noted that, where crossovers have been introduced along [address] the attractive uniform qualities of [address] Estate Conservation Area have been eroded. 13.Taking everything into account, I find that the proposed development would fail to conserve the character and appearance of the [address] Estate Conservation Area. Having regard to paragraph 202 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and to Planning Practice Guidance, I consider that the harm to the character and appearance of the [address] Estate Conservation Area would be less than substantial. This needs to be balanced against any public benefits the development may bring. 14.In this respect, there is no substantial evidence to demonstrate that there are any benefits that would amount to such public benefits that they would outweigh the harm identified. 15.Consequently, I find that the proposal would fail to conserve the character and appearance of the [address] Estate Conservation Area, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; and to DMPD1 Policies DMS1, DMS2 and DMH5, which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character. 1 Reference: Wandsworth Development Management Policies Document (2016). 2