Appeal 6002510

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed parking bay and EV charging point on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal property is a two-storey mid-terraced property on [address]. Most properties on [address] are within short, terraced blocks, fronting the road. Terraces to the appeal site side of the road are elevated above the road and terraces on the other side are below road level.

Parking occurs on the opposite side of [address] to the appeal site. Double yellow lines, restricting parking immediately in front of the site, are present to facilitate free flow of traffic along the one-way street.

The houses have front porches and gardens, which are typically bounded by low hedges, but some are bounded by low fences. There is a verge along the western side and much of the eastern side of [address], although no verge is present in front of the terrace in which the appeal property sits.

There are currently no private driveways, or off-street parking spaces, along the frontage of properties on the section of [address], on which the appeal site is located. The gardens provide a distinct separation between the dwellings and the road and associated on-street parking. The verges, street trees, boundary hedges and front gardens on [address], contribute to a street scene with a verdant and spacious feel.

The proposed development would remove the existing hedge boundary treatment to the front of [site address] and introduce a retaining wall within the garden, to provide a parking space, which would occupy much of the front garden. Removal of the boundary hedge would erode the verdant character of the street and the proposed property frontage, particularly when a car is parked on it, would be prominent and appear incongruous in the street scene. Box hedging would be provided behind the retaining wall, but this planting would not screen the parking space in the street scene or address the harm resulting from the loss of the existing boundary treatment.

The appellant’s statement of case refers to a recently constructed dwelling, next to [address], that has off-street parking. The off-street parking to this dwelling is to the side of the property. There is a lawn to the front of the house and a significant hedge between the lawn and footway. The hedge and lawn to the front of the dwelling contribute to the green and spacious character of the street. It is not therefore directly comparable to the proposed development and does not weigh in favour of the appeal.

The proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. Consequently, it would conflict with policies D1, D2 and D4 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan 2011-2029 [name] & Placemaking Plan (2017) and policy D5 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan [name] and Placemaking Plan incorporating the Local Plan Partial Update (2023). All these policies relate to the impact of development and include requirements relating to maintaining and enhancing the character and appearance of an area.

Representations have been made by the appellant, and others, regarding the lack of available parking in the area and a need for EV charging points, which would facilitate ownership of an electric vehicle. [name] was only on site for a short period, it was clear that demand for on-street parking is high.

In this instance, the benefit of the appeal proposal, would be provision of an off-street parking space and EV charger for the occupants of [site address] . Given the limited scale of the development, the additional facilities attract limited weight in favour of the appeal. However, this does not outweigh the harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site is located within the setting of a World Heritage Site (Bath) and consideration must be given to the effect of the proposal on the outstanding universal value of the World Heritage Site (WHS). As noted in The City of Bath World Heritage Site Setting Supplementary Planning Document (2013), the three main aspects of the setting are: (i) the landscape and townscape; (ii) views to and from the WHS and key heritage assets; and (iii) historical buildings, sites and features associated with the WHS.

Having regard to the location, size and appearance of the proposal, it would not result in harm to the outstanding universal value of the WHS. This lack of harm weighs neutrally and does not amount to consideration or alter my overall conclusion on the main issue.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it.