Appeal 6002578

The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to refurbishment of the existing driveway and to extend the block paving to replace the current path and stairs leading to both the front entrance of the house and the back garden gate.

The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to the refurbishment of the porch and front door and planning permission is granted for the refurbishment of the porch and front door at [site address] , Essex [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/HSE/25/00370DN, so far as relevant to that part of the development hereby permitted and subject to the following

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans insofar as they relate to the approved development: • 25/17/Arch/001; • 25/17/Arch/006; and • 25/17/Arch/007.

The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed in the materials shown on plan no 25/17/Arch/007 and as detailed on the Planning Application Form.

The appellant has requested in the event the proposed front porch and door is found to be acceptable, but the driveway is unacceptable, that consideration is given to issuing a split decision. I have proceeded on this basis.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and area, including on the Mark Hall North Conservation Area.

The appeal property is situated within the Mark Hall North Conservation Area (CA). In accordance with the statutory duty set out in Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, I have paid special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA.

The evidence shows that the significance of the CA lies in it being the first completed neighbourhood forming part of the Harlow New Town development. Of particular significance is the layout of the different groups of houses across the CA which represent early examples of the post-war period design and innovation. Based on my observations on my site visit, I concur with this evidence on the significance of the CA.

The appeal property is identified by the [name] and [name] (2022) as a [name] property situated in the Mark Hall Moors area. It is situated in a group of such properties which share common features that positively contributes to the identifiable layout of this group of houses. In particular, the properties which are set on raised ground have steps leading up to them from the pavement. The steps are finished in brick, set in regular spacing along the grassed banks providing a positively recognisable and coherent appearance to the frontages of these properties set on a raised ground level. The appeal property being set at a higher level and having a stepped access contributes positively to the regular layout of the properties and therefore to the character and appearance of the CA.

In relation to the doors and porches, throughout the group of [name] properties, there is a variety of canopies and door styles both in appearance and materials. As such, the existing property with a white door and modest pitch porch is unintrusive and in keeping with the wider group.

In relation to the proposed porch, this would be pitched and slightly larger than the existing. It would be of a design, bulk, scale and mass that would be in keeping with the surrounding variety of porches, resulting in no harm to the character and appearance of the area. This element of the proposal would therefore preserve the character and appearance of the CA. The Council has not raised concern with this element of the proposal, and I see no reason to either.

In relation to the door, whilst I note that the CA Management Plan identifies that the houses within [name] were predominantly designed with white doors, many properties now have different coloured doors. Therefore, I did not observe any particular group value in a recognisable regular appearance of the similar coloured doors within the area. As such, the proposed grey or white door would result in no harm to and would therefore preserve the character and appearance of the CA.

However, in relation to the extension of the driveway, this would involve the removal of the steps. This would result in a loss of a layout feature which positively contributes to the regular and consistent appearance of this group of raised [name] properties. It would be replaced with a wide block paved drive which would harmfully contrast with the steps set within grass frontages of the other [name] properties set at a higher level.

As such, the extension of the paving and removal of the steps would result in harm to the character and appearance of the host property and area, which would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA. The level of harm would amount to less than substantial in the context of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and would fall in the lower end of the spectrum given the small scale of the proposal. Nevertheless, this is a matter which I attach considerable importance and weight.

Paragraph 215 of the Framework requires less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

The evidence shows that the need for the non-stepped access arises from the occupiers needing to access the property with a pushchair, which is challenging with a stepped access either requiring it to be carried with a child or left on the pavement and returned for. It is also highlighted that the stepped access also provides challenges for disabled and elderly occupiers or visitors accessing the property. Age, maternity and disabilities are protected characteristics as set out in the Equality Act (2010). Providing easier access for individuals with these characteristics to the property is a notable benefit of the proposal. It would help in meeting the aims of the public sector equality duty as set out in s149 of the Equality Act (2010) by helping to eliminate discrimination against persons with the protected characteristics of age, disability and maternity, advancing equality of opportunity for those persons and fostering good relations between them and others by providing step free access to the property. As such, I attach considerable weight to this benefit.

The appellant has also identified safety concerns regarding the steps. However, I have no evidence showing that the steps would represent such an obstacle to emergency services accessing the property so it would amount to a health and safety risk. In addition, I have no evidence demonstrating that the steps cannot be made safe in adverse weather conditions through other methods other than their removal. Furthermore, whilst pushchairs would need to be left on the pavement, given the suburban nature of the area with modest footfall and traffic I have limited evidence demonstrating that this is a health and safety issue to the wider public. It therefore follows that I can only attribute limited weight in relation to removing the steps for these safety reasons.

The plans also state the widening of the parking area would maximise the visibility for pedestrians. However, given the low height of the existing wall it has not been demonstrated that current visibility is harmfully restricted. As such, this would also carry limited weight in favour.

Paragraph 212 of the Framework sets out that great weight should be given to a heritage asset’s conservation. Paragraph 202 identifies that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance. It has not been demonstrated that this specific proposal which results in harm to the CA is the only way to achieve improved access to the property.

As such, in this case the public benefits of the proposal do not outweigh the harm caused to, and the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA which is a matter of considerable importance and weight.

Whilst the proposed replacement porch and door would preserve the character and appearance of the CA, the proposed driveway and removal of the steps would result in harm which would not be outweighed by the public benefits. The proposed driveway therefore conflicts with Policies PL1, PL12 and WE5 of the Harlow Local Development Plan (2020), whilst the door and porch would comply with them. These policies, amongst other matters, seek to ensure that proposals are of a high standard of architectural design that protects local distinctiveness, along with ensuring that conservation areas are conserved or enhanced.

I have had regard to the appellants request to issue a split decision. I am satisfied that the front porch and door are clearly severable elements that are not physically or functionally linked to the extended driveway which I have found to be harmful. I will therefore issue a split decision allowing the appeal insofar as it relates to the replacement door and porch.

In relation to the extension of the driveway with block paving, the other material considerations, which I have previously identified in my public benefits balance, carry considerable and limited weight in favour of the proposal for the reasons that I have given. As mentioned, I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty set out under the Equality Act 2010. However, the harm to the CA caused by the driveway element outweighs its benefits in terms of eliminating discrimination against persons with protected characteristics, advancing equality of opportunity for those persons and fostering good relations between them and others.

The cost of commissioning plans and submitting the application has been raised by the appellant. However, the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)1 is clear that planning is concerned with land use in the public interest so that the protection of purely private interests could not be a material consideration.

I have considered the suggested conditions against the tests in the Framework and the advice in the PPG.

The standard timescale condition for implementation and a plans compliance condition are imposed for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of certainty. I have also imposed a condition requiring materials of the door and porch to be undertaken in accordance with the submitted details in order to ensure that the character and appearance of the CA is preserved.

For the reasons given above, the proposed driveway would conflict with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that this element of the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. In the case of the replacement door and porch these elements would be in accordance with the development plan, and the material considerations do not indicate that with regard 1 Paragraph: 008 [name]: 21b-008-20140306 to this element of the appeal that it should be decided other than in accordance with it.

As such, I shall allow the appeal in part in relation to the porch and door, subject to the conditions set out above, and dismiss the appeal insofar as it relates to the proposed extension of the driveway.