Appeal 6001199

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.

Two amended plans have been submitted with the appeal. [name] 12/KA/PL03 [name] includes additional proposed landscaping which does not fundamentally alter the appeal proposal and so I have accepted this plan. [name] 12/KA/PL03 [name] shows the additional landscaping and removes the sliding gates, I do not accept this drawing as part of the appeal. It represents a different proposal to the description and plans that were before the Council at the time of its decision. To accept it at this stage would risk prejudicing the Council and other interested parties, who have not had the opportunity to comment on the revised scheme.

The main issues are whether or not the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Woodford Broadway Conservation Area (WBCA), including its effect on trees; and the effect of the proposal on highway safety.

The appeal site is located on [address], a residential street where period properties are set back from the road by front gardens and driveways with predominantly open frontages. Despite differences in height and design, boundary treatments are generally low walls, usually incorporating a single wide opening, though in some cases two openings exist, some with pedestrian gates. Soft landscaping in the front gardens in combination with street trees creates a spacious, open character which has a landscape quality. This overall conformity creates a largely harmonious character and appearance.

It is within the WBCA and in line with section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) (the Act) I have paid special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area. From my observations, the significance of the WBCA, insofar as it is relevant to this case, is derived from the layout and appearance of the dwellings, reflective of early twentieth century suburban development. The typically open front gardens with low boundary walls, along with street trees creates an attractive setting for the period properties. Although open, the appeal site is devoid of soft landscaping and a boundary treatment and makes a neutral contribution to the WBCA.

While the proposal would reintroduce a boundary treatment at the site, the introduction of two wide vehicular accesses and black metal gates would not reflect the prevailing frontage character of the WBCA. The cited examples at 14, 15, 16, 19 and [address], which have two entrances, differ to the appeal scheme as they lack vehicular gates. [name] 25 does feature two large gates, this is an isolated case and is not characteristic of the WBCA. The other examples do not therefore lead me away from my above findings and in any event, I have come to my own view based on the planning merits of the case.

A previous tree at the site is said to have been felled due to damage caused by its roots to utilities and the garden surface. In its place would be the landscaping shown on [name] 12/KA/PL03 [name]. However, this would not sufficiently mitigate the visual effects of the proposal, which would be conspicuous in the street scene as two sets of wide gates would draw the eye as an uncharacteristic feature. Permeable paving would improve the appearance of the existing driveway however a large area of hard landscaping would remain with limited soft landscaping, to the detriment of the prevailing character and appearance of the area.

The proposed secondary dropped curb would be positioned further away from the street tree than the existing access. While this may avoid direct conflict with the tree from vehicles entering and exiting the appeal site, no assessment has been made on the effect of construction works on the tree and its roots. Given the tree’s proximity to the proposed dropped curb, the excavation and installation required to form the crossover could reasonably pose a risk to the health and longevity of the tree. In the absence of any arboricultural evidence, I cannot be satisfied that the tree would be appropriately protected. Were the publicly visible tree to be lost this would be detrimental to the positive verdant qualities it contributes to the character and appearance of the WBCA.

Overall, the proposal would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the WBCA and would harm its significance as a whole. It would not therefore meet the requirements of the Act or the provisions in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) regarding the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment. Due to the scale and nature of the proposal relative to the designated heritage asset, the degree of harm would be less than substantial, and towards the lower end of the spectrum. In these circumstances the Framework states that the harm should be weighed against the public benefits. I will return to this matter later.

To conclude, the proposal fails to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the WBCA, including its effect on trees. It would be in conflict with Policies HC1 and G7 of the London Plan (2021) (LP) and Policies LP26, LP33 and LP38 of the Redbridge Local Plan (2018). Amongst other matters, these policies require development to reflect the local character of the area, prioritise the conservation of heritage assets and protect trees or street scenes that contribute positively to

The proposal would introduce a second dropped kerb outside of the appeal property that would be close to a build‐out in the carriageway, which provides a traffic calming measure. While the new access would be wider than the existing access to facilitate manoeuvring, access/egress from it would be at a point in the road where the carriage way is narrowed and where drivers would be concentrating on who has right of way. Consequently, even though drivers may be travelling at a slow speed because of the traffic calming measures, the proposal would increase the risk of collision at a location sensitive to distraction or confusion, to the detriment of highway safety for all users, including pedestrians.

The appeal scheme has been designed to allow the occupiers to drive into the appeal site in one access and leave in the other, without the need to reverse and to improve access to an electric vehicle (EV) charging point installed at the property. It is indicated that the proposed sliding gates would be electrically operated to ensure that cars were not waiting in the road while they open. Nevertheless, for the reasons set out above, the proposal would diminish highway safety.

Drivers and pedestrians may well be aware that, as a residential street, vehicles could be manoeuvring onto and off driveways and the appellant has drawn my attention to other examples of driveways with two accesses. However, none of the examples front onto a build out in the carriageway and so do not have the same effect on highway safety as the appeal scheme would. Any policy compliance with regard to parking provision and vehicle emissions would be a neutral factor weighing neither for nor against the proposal.

I conclude, the proposal would unacceptably affect highway safety. in conflict with Policy T2 of the LP insofar as it requires proposals to demonstrate how they will deliver improvements that support the ten [name], including that people feel safe.

The harm to the significance of the WBCA would be less than substantial harm. The Framework requires that great weight should be given to the conservation of heritage assets, irrespective of the level of harm. Any harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset should also require a clear and convincing justification and be weighed against any public benefits.

The appeal scheme would assist in providing the appellant access to EV charging, which would deliver environmental objectives as described in the Framework. However, given the scale of the proposal this public benefit attracts limited weight.

Taking the above into consideration, the public benefits do not outweigh the harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset that I have identified, and the considerable importance and weight this carries.

The proposal would allow for off street parking that is accessible for the appellant’s parents who have mobility issues that require the use of a wheelchair. Disability is a protected characteristic and so I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty set out under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. This sets out the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment, victimisation, and to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it.

However, while the proposal may provide accessible off-street parking, including for wheelchair users there is no compelling evidence to suggest that such needs could not be met through another design that would result in a lesser impact on the WBCA and highway safety. Accordingly, there is no clear evidence to suggest that the dismissal of the appeal would have a disproportionate effect on those with protected characteristics, when weighed against the planning harm set out above.

For the reasons given above the proposal would conflict with the development plan, read as a whole. 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.