Appeal 6002862

The appeal is dismissed.

Although identified as a fifth reason for refusal on the Council’s decision notice, this reason amounts to a statement regarding the local planning authority acting in a positive and proactive manner. It is clear from the Council’s appeal statement it is not intended to frame this as a matter of dispute or conflict with the development plan. I have made my determination on that basis.

The appeal site is an area of undeveloped land which was originally part of the grounds of Fairlawn ([address]), a [name] listed building which lies within Putney Heath Conservation Area (PHCA) to the west of the appeal site. The appeal site lies outside the PHCA and no longer forms part of [address]. It is, however, designated in the Wandsworth Local Plan 2023-2038 (WLP) as a locally listed park and garden (Fairlawn Park) which the parties agree is a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA).

The appeal site was the subject of a recent proposal which was dismissed on appeal on 19 March 20241 (the previous appeal). The main issues in that case were the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area and whether the proposal would result in the unjustified loss of open space. In dismissing the appeal, the Inspector concluded that the significant harm to the character and appearance of the area and the significance of Fairlawn Park, a NDHA, and that arising from the loss of open space, were not outweighed by the scheme’s combined benefits, even though significant.

The current appeal scheme is similar to the scheme proposed under the previous appeal. The main difference being that a single, smaller dwelling is now proposed, 1 Appeal Reference APP/H5960/W/23/3314125. as opposed to two.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • the character and appearance of the area including having regard to the significance of Fairlawn Park, a NDHA; • the provision of open space; • biodiversity; and • air quality.

With its extensive greenery, tranquil lake and open unbuilt character, Fairlawn Park is an attractive, public open space which provides a tangible link to the historic Victorian landscaped gardens of Fairlawn. Nestled among the [name] it provides a welcome natural sanctuary amongst the surrounding large scale housing blocks. Taking this into account, in so far as relevant to the proposal, the significance of the NDHA lies partly in its historical layout and natural water features and its verdant, undeveloped character.

The introduction of the single-storey plus basement dwelling would introduce a relatively large built form to what is a relatively small plot, losing part of the open space between the buildings on [address] which leads to the rest of the park from the street. Consequently, it would have a harmful, dominating effect on Fairlawn Park and it would reduce the visual permeability of the park from the street.

Whilst it is envisaged that the house would look like a romantic garden pavilion, reminiscent of traditional park structures, there is little evidence to show that a building was ever intended at this location, so close to the cascade. Therefore, given the cascade would be viewed in a different context to that which was originally intended, the development would undermine the appeal site’s historic association with the rest of the park.

Whilst the cascade would be repaired, the dwelling would be enclosed by hedging. Therefore, rather than reading as a public water feature which flows into the lake, it would read (if seen at all) as a private water feature in a small domestic garden. As such, the water feature’s original connection with the park would be similarly undermined.

Additionally, the rustic rural aesthetic and natural materials of the dwelling, including its thatched roof, would look out of place against the surrounding urban housing blocks.

At the time of my site visit the appeal site was enclosed by timber hoarding. This was also the case in 2024. [name] accept that the hoarding does impair the positive visual impact of the appeal site, it does not prevent it altogether as the absence of built form is still discernible (especially by those in higher rise buildings nearby). My view is reinforced by the Inspector who dealt with the previous appeal, who also found that “with or without the hoarding or any other means of enclosure, the appeal site is still an undeveloped space which acts as a break in an otherwise relatively densely built-up urban environment”.

Moreover, there is some dispute regarding the lawfulness of the hoarding. In the absence of a Certificate of Lawfulness, coupled with the temporary appearance of the hoarding I have given its permanence limited weight. Consequently, regardless of the hoarding enclosure and whether or not the Council could enforce its removal, it is my view that the site still provides a positive contribution to the street scene.

I have also considered the suggestions that the site would be better managed, if the appeal were to be allowed, and incidents of anti-social behaviour reduced. However, there is limited detail on the nature or frequency of such incidents, nor what alternative measures (aside from the hoarding) might be employed. As such, these are benefits that I attribute limited weight and given my findings above, this would not be sufficient to make the development acceptable.

I accept that the reduced scale of the development compared with the previous appeal and the separation distance between the appeal site and [address] and the presence of intervening mature trees and boundary vegetation, means there would be no harm to the setting or significance of either the grade II listed [address] or the PHCA. In this respect, I concur with both main parties and the previous appeal Inspector. Nevertheless, this does not negate or surmount the harm that I have identified.

Paragraph 216 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states the effect of an application on the significance of a NDHA should be taken into account in determining the application. Additionally, it says in weighing applications that directly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset. Hence, I shall take account of this harm in my planning balance below.

Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, I conclude that the benefits of the repairs to the cascade would not be outweighed by the harm resulting from the unsympathetic addition of the dwelling to the character and appearance of the area including the significance of the NDHA Fairlawn Park. It therefore conflicts with policies LP1 and LP3 of the WLP and HC1 of the London Plan. Amongst other things, these policies require development proposals to enhance and relate positively to its surroundings, and conserve, and wherever possible, enhance the significance of heritage assets.

Amongst other things, Policy LP53 of the WLP protects open space. There is no dispute that the appeal site falls within the WLP definition of open space. This is consistent with the findings of the previous Inspector and I have no reason to disagree. [name] of the policy states that new development on or affecting public and private green and blue infrastructure or open space will only be permitted where it does not harm the character, appearance or function of the green and blue infrastructure or open space. [name] of the policy states that any development resulting in the reduction of green and blue infrastructure assets including protected open space will not be supported, unless exceptional circumstances exist and compensatory provision is secured.

Policy LP53 aligns with national policy in paragraph 104 of the Framework which states that existing open space should not be built on, unless it is surplus to requirements, or it would be replaced by compensatory provision or the development is for alternative sports and recreational provision.

I have already found that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area and the NDHA. As such, the proposal would fail to meet the provisions of [name].

Furthermore, even if I were to accept the appellant’s position that the limited role of the site as open space and benefits arising from the scheme amounted to ‘exceptional circumstances’, no compensatory provision is proposed. Consequently, the development would fail to accord with [name].

The proposal would therefore result in the unjustified and harmful loss of open space and would therefore be contrary to Policy LP53.

The appellant has provided a [name] (PEA) as part of the appeal process. This found the site to comprise mostly modified grassland with a small pond and two dried-up ponds. No evidence of protected species was found within the site, and it concluded that the 0.01ha loss of the grassland and the loss of the dried-up ponds would have a minimal impact on biodiversity due to the low ecological value of these habitats. Finally, it advised that mitigation measures (including biodiversity enhancements, precautionary working methods and the removal of invasive [name]) would be sufficient to offset the habitat loss and enhance the biodiversity of the area.

However, it is not clearly shown that the baseline habitat information used in the BNG metric takes account of the existing pond habitat. Its omission from the baseline assessment casts doubt on the accuracy of the assessment and the resultant BNG calculations. It follows there is uncertainty as to whether the proposal would be able to meet the mandatory requirements for BNG within the site.

Therefore, based on the information provided, I am not satisfied, that the proposal’s effect on ecological interests have been properly addressed.

Accordingly, I conclude that the proposal has not demonstrated that it would be acceptable in terms of its impact on biodiversity interests. On that basis it would conflict with Policy LP55 of the WLP which, amongst other things, requires development proposals to protect and enhance biodiversity and deliver a net gain in biodiversity.

Policy LP14 of the WLP states that development proposals must be at least ‘Air Quality Neutral’. It goes on to state that in areas already subject to poor air quality an air quality impact assessment and modelling data may be necessary.

The Council has not identified any specific air quality harm which it considers would arise from the development nor has it provided any substantive evidence to indicate that the site lies within an area of poor air quality.

Whilst an Air Quality Neutral Statement has not been provided, the ‘Environmental Impacts’ section of the application form indicates that the proposed development’s total annual NOx emissions would be zero, as would its total annual particulate matter emissions. In the absence of an Air Quality Neutral Statement, I find that the level of detail provided with the application form, together with the details provided in the Sustainability and [name] are sufficient and commensurate with the nature of the development.

For the above reasons, I consider that the application contained adequate information to assess the likely impacts of the development on air quality and based on the evidence before me I do not consider that the proposed development would result in a worsening of air quality during the construction or operation stage, so would accord with Policy LP14 of the WLP.

[name] note that the Council does not raise any objections to the proposal in terms of highways, flood risk, living conditions, waste management, land contamination, trees or fire safety, compliance with the development plan in these respects is a neutral factor.

In coming to my findings, I have taken account of the representations in response to the planning application, and appeal, some of which were supportive. However, I have addressed the matters raised within my reasoning on the main issues.

I have found above that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area and would undermine the significance of the NDHA Fairlawn Park. The harm to the NDHA would be significant.

I have also found that the proposal would lead to an unjustified loss of open space. Moreover, it is not shown the proposal would avoid a harmful impact on biodiversity.

Balanced against that, the proposal would deliver a dwelling in an accessible location, which would make a modest contribution to local housing supply in line with Policy H2 of the London Plan. The local economy would be supported during its construction, and by future occupants.

Through its incorporation of renewable technology and advanced construction methods the property would exceed requirements for carbon reduction and water efficiency set out in Policy LP10 of the WLP.

The development of the site would likely deter fly-tipping and anti-social behaviour and improve surveillance.

Finally, the proposed restoration of the cascading waterfall would preserve an important heritage element of the site. However, as the restored cascade would be viewed in the context of the private dwelling, this would diminish its relationship with the park, tempering the benefit overall.

Whilst together, I find these combined benefits to be valuable, they would not outweigh the harm I have identified to the heritage asset, the loss of open space and biodiversity.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations that would outweigh that conflict. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.