Appeal 6002429

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for landscaping work to front garden at [site address] , Camden, London [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2025/4033/P, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following condition:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out and maintained in accordance with the following approved plans: C001 - Site Location Plan; 001 Rev P1 - Existing and Proposed Site Plans; 002 Rev P1 - Existing and Proposed Part Site Plans (Front).

I observed that the development has already taken place and I have dealt with the appeal on that basis.

The main issues are the effect of the development on: • The character and appearance of the appeal property and the surrounding area, including the Belsize Conservation Area; and • Biodiversity.

The appeal site is a three-storey detached property on [address]. It forms one of a row of three similar properties on the road which are set back from the highway by small forecourt gardens behind dwarf brick walls and hedging typical of this section of the road. It lies in the Belsize Conservation Area (CA) and is subject to a direction under Article 4(1) of the General Permitted Development Order 1995 (as amended) restricting Permitted Development relating to amongst other things the provision or replacement of hard surfacing to the front or side of dwellings.

The appeal property is located within the [address] sub area of the CA which derives its significance from late-Victorian dwellinghouses set on consistent building-lines, and is identified in the Belsize Conservation Area Statement (BCAS) as a building which makes a positive contribution to the CA. Front gardens and boundary walls are generally identified as distinctive characteristics of the CA and these features are evident along [address].

The plans indicate that the area given over to additional hard surfacing is small and therefore it is apparent that the visual impact of the development is similarly minor, especially in proportion to the existing hardstanding at the front of the property. Irrespectively, the retention of the trees behind the hard surfacing, combined with the hedging in front, maintains sufficient soft landscaping at the front of the property such that the impact on the character and appearance of the CA is not noticeable or discernible.

The development has resulted in the removal of a small amount of vegetation which the Belsize Conservation Area Design Guide (BCADG) advises should be retained or replanted. However, the development retains the tree planting which, being visible above the front boundary, are most important to the visual appearance of the property. Similarly, I have no evidence of the original layout, landscaping or materials utilised within the front garden of the property which the BCADG advises should be reinstated or retained. Nor do I have any evidence as to whether the proposal would lead to excessive surface water run-off or be harmful to wildlife.

Indeed, front gardens within [address] are subject to a wide variety of surfacing materials, and the development has not replaced an area of original York stone paving which the BCADG also advises should be retained. These factors, alongside the development being heavily screened from view, mean that the visual impact of the paving material is muted despite its light colour. Equally, irrespective of whether the surfacing is concrete slabs or York stone paving, the material is not poor quality and is comparable to other areas of hard surfacing within the street including that within the public realm. Therefore, it is not harmful to the appearance of the CA.

Under Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, I am required to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the [name]. The limited scale and sympathetic materials comprising the hardstanding assimilate well into its surroundings. When considered individually and cumulatively with other examples of paving in front gardens of properties along the road it would not result in harm to the special interest of the CA. Its effect on the character or appearance of the CA would be neutral and therefore the significance of the CA would be preserved.

Accordingly, I conclude that the proposal would not have any adverse effect on the character and appearance of the appeal property or the CA. There would therefore be no conflict with Camden Local Plan Policies A2, D1 and D2 which, amongst other things, seek to secure high quality design and to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the historic environment.

The proposal involves the loss of a small area of planting within the front garden of the appeal property, which the Council asserts would result in a loss of biodiversity. However, I have no substantive evidence before me of the biodiversity value of the planting which has been removed. Moreover, I have no substantive evidence before me that the trees which have been retained have been damaged in any way.

I accept that the removal of soft-landscaping to enable the laying of a hard-surface may incur some generic loss of habitat. However, given the small scale of the area in question, its contribution to biodiversity in the local area is likely to have been negligible

I am therefore satisfied that the development does not have a demonstrably negative effect on biodiversity and, consequently, is not in conflict with Policy A3 of the Camden Local Plan (2017) which seeks to protect features of nature conservation value, including gardens, wherever possible.

I have considered the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area and the potential effects of the proposal on biodiversity. As such, I have had regard to all the objections to the development including from local residents, the Belsize Conservation Area Advisory Committee and the Belsize Society that are relevant to the main issues of this appeal.

[name] acknowledge there are concerns in respect of the space available for trees to grow, I have no evidence as to their likelihood of failure. In addition, I note that reference is made to a brick structure. No such structure is indicated on any plans before me, and it would not benefit from planning permission as a result of this decision. I note that the BCADG requires hard surfacing to be resisted, however the Article 4(1) direction is limited to removing permitted development rights and, for the reasons set out above, the development does not undermine the purpose of the direction as it preserves the character and appearance of the CA.

It has been suggested that the grant of planning permission would set a precedent for other similar developments on [address]. However, no directly comparable sites to which this might apply have been put forward. Each application and appeal must be determined on its individual merits, and a generalised concern of this nature does not justify withholding permission in this case.

I consider it appropriate to attach a condition requiring the development to be carried out and maintained in accordance with the approved plans to provide certainty and ongoing clarity as to what has been permitted. As the development is retrospective, it would not be appropriate to impose the standard condition related to the commencement time limit.

The development does not conflict with the development plan and material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above, the appeal is allowed.