Appeal 3297567

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council’s decision notice refers to the St Matthias Conservation Area Statement, however from the supporting documents it is clear this is an error, and the site lies within the Castelnau Conservation Area.

The main issues are the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area, including the Conservation Area and the setting of Buildings of [name].

[address] is a wide tree lined residential street which forms part of the Castelnau Conservation Area (CCA). The villa properties are set back from the road and whilst there is some variation the front boundaries are generally formed of low walls with hedging above, and notably tall white pillars are sited to either side of the vehicular or pedestrian access points. In my view, the front boundary treatment is an important feature of the street scene and contributes to the character of the CCA.

The appellant’s analysis of the front boundaries along [address] demonstrates that the majority have a vehicular access and forecourt parking. However, in contrast to the prevailing form, the proposal would create a completely open frontage leaving only the pillars to either side of the plot. Whilst no.54 is a semi-detached property and has a more limited plot width than other properties along the street, the full width is not required to accommodate a driveway.

The open frontages referred to by the appellant (No.31a and land between Nos.76 & 78) relate to the width of the access, and maintaining some enclosure was a key factor in the appeal decision for a vehicular access to No.681, referenced by the appellant, which was allowed but subject to the provision of gates and railings. As such, I do not find the appeal proposal would be directly comparable to other access arrangements along [address] which help to define the frontage of Buildings of [name] and screen forecourt parking. The existing low brick wall is not in itself a positive feature, but the loss of the pillar and the wide, open gap created would be visibly at odds with the character of the area.

In conclusion, I find that the development would be harmful to the visual appearance of [address], which contributes to the significance of the CCA. The level of harm to the CCA would be less than substantial, and therefore in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) this is to be weighed against public benefits. The proposal would create an off-street parking space, but this would be achieved through the removal an on-street space, and there are no identified benefits which would outweigh with the great weight, as defined by paragraph 202 of the Framework, given to the conservation of designated heritage assets.

Thus, the development would fail to accord with Local Plan2 policies LP1, LP2 and LP4 which seek that development is of a high-quality design, compatible with the local character, respects relationships to the public realm, conserves and where possible makes a positive contribution to the historic environment and preserves the character and setting of Buildings of [name].

I am aware that this proposal follows an earlier refused scheme and that the Council has raised no highway objection to the proposal. Additionally, as part of the appeal the appellant has provided a further plan showing new landscaping within the site. However, these factors would not change the open nature of the site frontage and would not mitigate the harm I have found.

For the reason set out and having regard to all other matters raised I dismiss the appeal.