Appeal 6002619

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area.

Park Lane is formed of two sections of no-through road, with a linking section of footway and verge. In the vicinity of the proposal site, there are no footways and the carriageway is narrow and the width of surfacing broken and irregular. The carriageway is fronted by fencing and planting, including mature trees.

Dwellings are generally of one and a half or two storeys and set well back off the carriageway, behind mature gardens. This gives the area a verdant, informal appearance. Where boundaries have been removed, such as is the case for the appeal site, views are provided into the back land, and this, together with the set back of the dwellings, gives the locality of the site a distinct feeling of openness. These are positive features of the area, defining its character and appearance. The appeal site, by virtue of its open frontage and front garden makes a positive contribution to this spaciousness and, thereby, to those positive features that I have identified. Whilst there are some outbuildings in the immediate area close to the carriageway and forward of their host dwelling, these are of modest scale and do not undermine the feeling of spaciousness.

The proposal would replace one of these modest outbuildings with a building of much greater scale, positioned close to the carriageway. In so doing the proposal would significantly reduce the feeling of spaciousness in the area, which I have identified above as contributing positively to its character and appearance. The reduction in the area’s feeling of spaciousness would be significant and harmful, and this would be readily observable from Park Lane.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area. This would be contrary to the aims of Policy BE14 of the Brentwood Local Plan 2016-2033 (2022) (the Local Plan), which requires that proposals meet high design standards and deliver attractive development by, amongst other things, responding positively and sympathetically to their context and building upon existing strengths and characteristics, enhancing existing features which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the local area.

The appeal site is located close to the Herongate Conservation Area (the CA). Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires special attention be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area. The significance of the CA derives from the range of buildings within it dating from the 15th to the 20th century, many of which are Listed Buildings, its historical ties to the Tyrell family and the layout of built form around public spaces.

However, the proposal is well screened from the CA by existing development and planting, with no meaningful visual connexion, and so would have no material impact on the CA and so the character and appearance of the CA as a whole would be preserved. I note that the Council raised no objection in this regard either. Nevertheless, this lack of harm weighs neutrally and does not amount to a consideration in support of the appeals or alter my overall conclusions 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. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.