Appeal 3293728

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Cotham and Redland Conservation Area.

The appeal building is two-storey, finished in stone with a tiled roof and white timber sash windows. No.7 is set back from the road with a front garden bordered with a low stone boundary wall – the retention of the front boundary wall is a key characteristic of most of the northern side of [address].

The street scene, which is located within the Cotham and Redland Conservation Area, is characterised by similarly designed buildings, using similar materials. This indicates that the area most likely was built around the same time as part of a larger development, as detailed within the Cotham and Redland - [name] & [name] 2011 document. It is this visual uniformity from which the significance of the conservation area derives.

The application seeks permission for demolition and partial rebuilding of the front boundary wall to accommodate an off-street parking space. The site is subject to an Article 4 Direction which removes the ability to undertake the works as permitted development. The gap created within the wall would be around 4.4 metres. This would erode the character of this part of the conservation area, where, in the main, front boundary walls typically have narrow openings for pedestrians or in more limited cases for vehicles. As such, the proposal would have a negative impact on the conservation area and its significance.

I note that there are some examples nearby where driveways and parking areas, with associated openings in walls, have been created. However, it is unclear when such activities occurred. Moreover, in itself this does not provide justification for the perpetuation of this ahistorical feature through the further erosion of front boundary walls as this proposal seeks.

Whilst the adverse impact identified would be no greater than less than substantial harm, in accordance with paragraph 202 of the National Planning Policy Framework this harm should be weighed against the public benefits. In this respect I note the suggested benefits including; being able to provide an electric charge point off the highway, that there would be no net loss in parking (with one space swapped on-road to off-road), and the ability to use the scheme to improve and repair the existing wall and front garden area.

However, some benefits could be realised without the need for the development proposed (for example repair of the wall and landscaping of the front garden area). I do not find that these benefits would outweigh the harm identified to the conservation area.

Accordingly, I find that the proposal would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area. The proposal would not accord with Policies BCS21 and BCS22 of the Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy 2011, and Policies DM26, DM30 and DM31 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Local Plan 2014, which, amongst other aims seek to ensure that development proposals safeguard or enhance heritage assets including conservation areas.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.