Appeal 6002776

The appeal is dismissed.

The application form includes a lengthy and detailed description of development, which I have taken into account in my consideration of the appeal. However, in the interests of conciseness I have taken the description above from the appeal form, which I note was also used in the Council’s decision notice.

I note that the development has already been carried out. Although the fence appears to have been constructed as shown on the plans before me, for the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the appeal based on the submitted plans

The main issue is whether the development preserves or enhances the character or appearance of the Preston Park Conservation Area.

The appeal site comprises a detached dwelling in a predominantly residential area. It is set back from the footway by a small front yard area. There are a range of boundary treatments along this part of [address], including high wooden gates and brick walls. Nevertheless, properties fronting this part of the street, including the appeal site, largely have low rendered boundary walls, some with metal railings above and occasionally softened by vegetation, which give an open appearance to the locality and views of the houses behind. The site lies in the Preston Park Conservation Area (PPCA), a designated heritage asset.

Having regard to the [name], its significance derives in part from the predominantly residential properties dating from the mid to late 19th century adjacent to the original village of Preston. It identifies terraces of two storey rendered dwellings with canted front bays on this part of [address]. Although the appeal site is not part of a terrace, the building displays similar features to the houses in the terraces. Therefore, along with the traditional boundaries, the appeal dwelling forms part of the cohesive character of the street, making a positive contribution to the architectural interest of the PPCA.

The development has introduced a timber fence behind the front wall and railing, replacing a hedge which the appellant indicates had started to deteriorate due to trimming to keep the pavement clear. The Council’s SPD12 [name] for Extensions and Alterations 2013 states that the design and height of boundary treatments should relate to the character of the street, particularly if of uniform character.

The solid fence does not permit views through it and timber is not a significant feature of front boundary treatments in the area. Due to its position, height and appearance, the fence is a prominent and alien feature which obscures a large section of the front elevation of the appeal dwelling. This detracts from the building’s appearance, preventing appreciation of the architecture of its primary elevation, thereby diminishing its contribution to the streetscene. This results in harm to the PPCA, which carries considerable importance and weight. The alignment relative to other boundary treatments provides little mitigation to this impact, nor does retaining the existing railings.

Whilst the timber fence may be lower in height than the hedge it has replaced, this does not justify the height and appearance of the development before me. As a natural feature, a hedge would have had a markedly different impact to that of a solid, permanent fence. It could reasonably be expected to change in appearance and height over time. In any case, from information before me, it appears that the hedge had a positive, softening effect on the streetscene that is not achieved by the appeal scheme.

There are some taller and comparably solid boundary treatments in the wider area, but these generally form side boundaries to properties on nearby streets. However, the development before me is located at the front of the property and the effects I have identified are not directly comparable to the cited examples.

The appellant intends to introduce jasmine planting to soften the effect of the development which, in time, could provide a degree of screening. However, even with this planting the development would remain prominent and discordant in height compared to other similar front boundaries and obscure the front elevation of the building. Moreover, soft landscaping may change in appearance over time and cannot be relied upon to provide the same extent of screening in perpetuity. Accordingly, I am not satisfied that such planting, nor an alternative landscaping scheme, would overcome the identified harm.

For the reasons set out, the development neither preserves nor enhances the character or appearance of the PPCA. As the scheme is relatively small scale, this amounts to less than substantial harm in the terms of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework). This would be within the lower range of that spectrum of harm, to which Framework paragraph 212 requires great weight be given.

The Framework states that less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset should be weighed against the public benefits of a development proposal. The appellant has undertaken some other improvements to the property, however those are unrelated to the appeal scheme. It is also indicated that the development is intended to provide privacy to family members when using the living room. However, this would be experienced largely as a private benefit, and it has not been demonstrated that adequate levels of privacy could not be achieved in a less harmful manner. Consequently, there is no clear and convincing justification for the harm I have identified and nor is it outweighed by any identified public benefits.

Therefore, I conclude that the development does not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the PPCA. This conflicts with Policies CP12 and CP15 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One (2016) and Policies DM18, DM21 and DM26 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part Two (2022). Amongst other things, those policies seek developments which conserve and enhance the city’s historic environment, with particular regard to the primary importance of street elevations.

For the reasons given above, the development conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.