Appeal 6000597

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The main issues are whether the proposal would: i) preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Swindon Old Town Gardens Conservation area; and ii) comply with the parking provision requirements of the development plan.

Swindon Old Town Gardens Conservation Area (CA) is set around Town Gardens, an urban park located on the site of [name]. The surrounding residential area comprises prestigious suburban housing typical of the late Victorian period and first decades of the 20th century. Today, the CA retains much of its Victorian and Edwardian character. Together with the peaceful atmosphere of Town Gardens which extends to the surrounding residential streets, these factors all contribute to the significance of the CA.

The appeal site is located on [address] where dwellings tend to be a mixture of substantial semi-detached and detached Edwardian villas. A common feature of the area is stone or brick roadside walls which although varying in height and design, provide a sense of enclosure to front gardens. The Council’s Swindon Old Town Gardens Conservation Area Appraisal (2008) notes that these walls are important features of the CA that should be retained. Indeed, from my own observations they positively contribute to the character and appearance of the CA, adding to its significance.

There are several properties on [address] where all or part of the front boundary walls have been removed to facilitate parking. These examples have to some extent eroded front boundary walling within the CA. This includes at the immediate neighbouring dwelling at [address] for example. Even so, in the main front garden walls across the wider CA have been retained and the front walls at the appeal property and its adjoining neighbour at [address] provide a strong walled presence to the road frontage near to the junction of [address] and [address] and the southern edge of Town Gardens. Therefore, alterations to the front boundary have the potential to have an apparent effect on a positive component of the CA’s built character.

The works associated with the proposed development include the substantial removal of the front boundary wall at [site address] . As a consequence, the front of the property would be open to the street. This would unacceptably erode the contribution the site makes to the prevailing walled character of the roadside on [address] to the detriment of the character and appearance of the CA.

Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires decision makers to have special regard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area. Having regard to the scale of the proposal, which relates to a single property in the CA, the harm to the CA would be at the lower end of less than substantial.

The National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework) requires me to give great weight to the heritage asset’s conservation and to weigh the level of harm identified in this case against any public benefits. The removal of the front boundary wall would result in a private benefit for occupiers of the host dwelling through the provision of off-street parking which could in the future allow for an electric charging point should occupiers of the host dwelling have an electric vehicle. There would also be the potential for some modest economic benefits associated with the development works. However, I find that there are no public benefits before me of sufficient weight to outweigh the harm identified to the CA.

The proposal would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA. In that regard, it would conflict with the requirements of Policy EN10 of the Swindon Borough Local Plan (2015) (LP) which requires that development within or which would affect the setting of the Borough’s Conservation Areas will conserve those elements which contribute to their special character or appearance. For the same reasons, the proposal would conflict with the requirements to conserve and enhance the historic environment in The Framework.

Policy TR2 of the LP requires parking associated with new development to be provided in accordance with the Council’s adopted parking standards. Swindon Borough Council’s Parking Standards for New Development (2021) (the [name]) indicates that parking spaces are expected to have a minimum dimension of 2.5metres (m) x 5.0m and, if bounded by a wall or fence, an additional 300mm will need to be added to facilitate door opening.

Based on the dimensions on the appellant’s drawings, the width of the proposed hardstanding would not meet these minimum dimensions. This is because it is likely that vehicles would need to be parked alongside a ‘gabions retaining wall with 1100mm high railings around’ and so the additional 300mm in the [name] applies to the minimum requirement in this instance. Furthermore, there is the possibility that as a result of the deficient dimensions proposed, vehicles would either be parked overhanging the footway to provide space to open doors within the site, or alternatively that vehicle doors would open on to the footway. This has the potential to impede the footway causing inconvenience for pedestrians including more vulnerable users including the visually impaired or wheelchair users for example.

I conclude, the proposal would not comply with the parking provision requirements of the development plan. In that regard there would be specific conflict with the requirement in Policy TR2 of the LP for parking provision in accordance with the [name].

My attention has been drawn to examples of properties where horizontal off-street parking has been created at other properties on [address] and where walling has been removed to front boundaries. However, the specific planning circumstances in each case have not been provided. Therefore, it is unclear whether planning permission was granted in those particular cases and if it was, what the material planning considerations were in each case. In any case, they are not reason to allow development which for the reasons set out would be harmful.

The appellant contends that they have invested in a new period style front door, modern period-style sash windows, roof cleaning and the repair and repainting of window surrounds. Whether or not this has enhanced the ‘kerb appeal’ of the appeal property, this does not justify the harm identified under the main issues.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.