Appeal 3313436

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for proposed new vehicular access and associated works including erection of new gate posts and automatic gates, blocking off of existing access and associated works at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, 107006/HHA/22, dated 20 January 2022, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

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 accordance with the following approved plan: Proposed and Existing Site Plans, [name] and Street scenes – drawing ref. 923-P-01-D.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Tree Protection Method Statement by Lally Tree Management, [name]: LTM0585.MS.01 received 30th August 2022.

The description of development in the banner heading above has been taken from the Council’s decision notice as it accurately describes the development now before me, which was amended during the course of the planning application to encompass the proposal to block up the existing access.

The main issue in this case is whether or not the proposal would preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Devisdale Conservation Area.

Beechthorpe is a large, detached dwelling, dating from the mid- [postcode] , set within generous gardens on the corner of [address] and [address]. It is within the Devisdale Conservation Area (the CA). The dwelling fronts [address] and is well enclosed on both boundaries with the highway: a low stone wall and hedging to [address]; and low stone wall and timber fencing to [address].

The Devisdale Conservation Area, Supplementary Planning Document, Conservation Area Appraisal (2016) (SPD5.10) describes the significance of the CA as derived, in part, from the historic properties, the majority Victorian, of a variety of styles set on substantial plots, often to the back of the plot or off centre. It further describes that many of these properties have boundary treatments of low stone walls with planting above, which give the area a historic character. I observed on my site visit that such boundary treatment is a strong characteristic of [address] with dwellings partly screened from view by mature trees and shrubs. Beechthorpe is identified as a ‘[name] to the CA, reflecting a substantial number of elements in the CA in age, style, materials and form. I find the low stone wall and mature planting along [address] to form part of Beechthorpe’s positive contribution.

The existing main access to Beechthorpe is located to the rear of the dwelling from [address], at the eastern end of the plot. The proposal is for this access to be blocked off, and a new vehicular access created from [address] following the removal of the existing boundary wall. New gates and gateposts are proposed, set back within the plot, as well as an area of gravel driveway to the front of the dwelling. This proposed removal of the historic low-level front wall, the re-positioning of a gate opening and the removal of part of the front garden to create additional hardstanding would be contrary to policies 31, 34 and 35 of the Devisdale Conservation Area, Supplementary Planning Document, Conservation Management Plan (2016) (SPD5.10a). Collectively, this guidance aims to preserve and enhance the significant low stone boundary walls and associated planting, characteristic of the CA.

However, although it would result in removal of a section of historic wall (of around 5m in width) on the [address] frontage, the proposed new access had been designed so that it is splayed, with the stone wall material reused to construct a new section of wall up to the proposed gates set-back around 5m within the plot. The OS map regression submitted by the appellant shows that Beechthorpe is unusual in that it historically did not benefit from access from [address], and I saw on my site visit that most dwellings on [address] have a similar access arrangement to the proposal before me. The new access would therefore assimilate well with this established historic character and the attractive linear views north and south along [address] would not be substantively changed, notwithstanding the proximity of the proposed access to that of the neighbour, Highfield. The views would remain of the characteristic long boundary walls, broken in places, with mature, secluded gardens behind. There would therefore be no conflict with the aims of the SPD guidance.

The proposal would result in the removal of a Plum and Holly tree on the [address] frontage; the latter being identified as Category B1 so of moderate quality or value. [name] agree with the Council’s Arboriculturist that the loss of these trees is regrettable, the location of the proposed access is such that the large Yew tree in the north-west corner of the plot and the group of Cypress trees and much of the boundary hedgerow on the frontage can be retained. Inevitably, the proposed new access would result in a greater visual appreciation of Beechthorpe, which is in itself not negative given the contribution the SPD recognises it makes (as a building) to the CA. There would also be an increase in the amount of hardstanding to the front of the dwelling, including the removal of the footway to [address] identified on the 1913 OS map. However, the retention of most of the mature landscape features on the frontage means the secluded and verdant character that contributes to the significance of the CA would nonetheless be preserved.

The design of the gate posts and gate is very similar to those of the neighbouring dwelling, Highfield. The gate posts would be around 2.1m in height constructed in stone and of relatively slender proportions, with black powder coated gates between. I do not find them to be unsympathetic in design and because they would be well set back from the pavement, they would not be particularly prominent in the streetscene, visible only in close proximity to Beechthorpe.

The significance of a CA is dependent on how it is experienced and proposals must be judged according to their effect on a CA as a whole, having at least a degree of prominence. For the reasons I have given, the proposal would not be unduly prominent and would not be detrimental to the character or appearance of the CA, preserving its significance. In reaching this conclusion, I have had regard to SPD5.10 and 10a and Supplementary Planning Document SPD4: A Guide for [address] Extensions and Alterations (2012). Consequently, the proposal would accord with policies R1 and L7 of the Trafford Local Plan: [name] (2012) and the guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), in so far as they require development to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of conservation areas, be of high quality and appropriate to its context.

I have had regard to the other matters raised by local residents and the Bowdon Conservation Group in respect of pedestrian safety and traffic disruption. I observed on my site visit that the existing access arrangement is constrained because of the narrow width of [address] and I have no evidence before me to disagree with the Local Highway Authority that the proposed new access from [address] provides a betterment over this existing arrangement. The proposed gates would also be set back within the plot, such that a vehicle would be able to pull off the highway and pavement whilst waiting for the gates to open.

The Council have suggested a number of conditions and I have considered these against the Framework and Planning Practice Guidance.

In addition to the standard time limit for implementation of the planning permission, it is necessary to specify the approved drawings in the interests of certainty. The proposed drawings show full details of the gate posts, gates, driveway and blocked off access (to [address]), including materials. I do not therefore find it necessary or reasonable to require further details to be submitted and approved, as suggested by the Council.

Notwithstanding the loss of 2no. trees, I further do not find it necessary for a full soft landscaping scheme to be submitted for a householder proposal of this nature. However, in the interests of protecting the retained trees and preserving the character and appearance of the CA, I have imposed a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the Tree Protection Method Statement.

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