Appeal 6002947

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for demolition of part of a boundary wall, excavation of area comprising 6 metres by 7.5 metres to facilitate creation of access and electric vehicle charger at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00707/HOU, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the significance of the [site address] Conservation Area (LSCA) as a designated heritage asset (DHA).

Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires me to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area. The LSCA Proposal Statement (LSCAPS) was approved and endorsed by the District Council in 1999, and includes an appraisal of the LSCA.

From what I have seen and read, the significance of the LSCA is derived from its well-preserved historic buildings, its generally spacious form, rural vernacular and character, including limited footway provision, along with its visual and historical connections with surrounding open and agricultural land, and the nearby [name] and grounds. The road network is largely narrow and curving, much of which is enclosed by grass verges, high banks, hedgerow and shrubbery. There also some attractive old stone wall front enclosures. The above enclosure types also generally contribute positively to the LSCA’s significance.

The appeal site (Highbank) comprises a two-storey semi-detached dwelling, facing [site address] at close proximity to the highway. Highbank is enclosed by a brick and knapped flint front wall, believed to be constructed in the 1920s or early 1930s, along with several other walls in the locality, by a bricklayer for [name]. The area of proposed works, beyond the side of the host dwelling, is also enclosed by a row of dense shrubbery, above the wall on higher ground.

Highbank’s existing hard and soft front enclosure therefore contributes positively to the LSCA’s character and significance. The LSCAPS sets out that gaps where hedges are missing tend to stand out as inappropriate. It also refers to an Article 4 Direction that removes permitted development rights for, amongst other things, the demolition of a wall within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse fronting a highway.

I found however that many dwellings and cottages benefit from vehicular accesses, which are therefore not uncommon features in the LSCA. My attention has also been drawn to some examples of other dwellings that contain low front wooden enclosures, which I found to not detract from the LSCA’s significance. The proposed treated wooden sleepers to enclose the parking area would thus not be an entirely alien feature in the LSCA in terms of material and appearance.

The shrubbery to be removed is manicured, of significantly lower height than surrounding trees visible from the lane, and therefore not of significant landscape or amenity value. Its loss would thus not conflict with Policy CON8 of the Hart District Local Plan (Replacement) 1996-2006 [name] 2020 (LPRSP). There is no demonstrable evidence before me that the proposed excavation works would affect the stability of Highbank or the adjoining Netherwood.

The proposal would nonetheless replace a notable amount of front enclosure, of some historic and visual interest, with engineered excavation works to provide a modern gravel driveway. This would somewhat unbalance the existing frontages of the semi-detached dwellings and would fail to conserve or enhance the significance of the LSCA. In this respect, the appeal scheme conflicts with Policies NBE8 and NBE9 of the Hart Local Plan (Strategy & Sites) (LPSS) 2032 (Adopted 2020), and Policy GEN1 of the LPRSP.

The policy conflict in respect of harm to a DHA amounts to conflict with the development plan as a whole. LPSS Policy NBE8 sets out that proposals which would lead to harm to the significance of a heritage asset will not be permitted unless they meet the relevant tests and assessment factors specified in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

Framework Paragraph 212 states that when considering the impact of development on the significance of a DHA, great weight should be given to its conservation. Paragraph 213 states that any harm to the DHA’s significance should require clear and convincing justification. The proposal amounts to less than substantial harm to the significance of the LSCA, but this is of considerable importance and weight. The shrubbery to be removed is not of significant landscape or amenity value, and most of the front brick and flint enclosure along Highbank and Netherwood would be retained. The extent of harm to the LSCA’s significance would thus be minor.

Under such circumstances, Framework Paragraph 215 states that the less than substantial harm, as articulated above, should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. The appellant’s intention for the proposal to facilitate off-street parking and an electric vehicle charge point could be described as a private desire. However, Framework paragraph 168 sets out that when determining planning applications for all forms of renewable energy developments and their associated infrastructure, it should be recognised that small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

[name] has an existing garage, it is not within its curtilage. The District Council accepts that it would be difficult to connect this garage to an electricity supply. Moreover, as the garage is not connected to Highbank’s boundary, delivery of such works cannot be guaranteed, as they would require use of third-party land. I am also not aware of any public charge points in the village. For the above reasons, I afford significant weight in favour of the proposal facilitating an electric vehicle charge point for current and future occupiers of Highbank.

It is put to me that there is no evidence to indicate an existing issue with on-street parking in the area. However, the Parish Council refers to such on-street parking as being a problem. This matter is also echoed in some neighbouring representations.

I observed low traffic levels and speeds along [site address] , which is narrow, and Highbank is near to the [address] junction. I also saw the lane used by pedestrians and cyclists. Whilst my site visit was a snapshot in time, I view the provision of off-street parking space as a minor highway safety benefit, as it would likely remove or reduce off-street parking at this location. This would increase visibility to drivers and pedestrians, and would improve access for larger vehicles.

Cumulatively, the above public benefits are of sufficient weight to outweigh the less than substantial harm to the significance of the LSCA. There would therefore be no conflict with the historic environment protection policies in the Framework. The benefits arising from the proposal would outweigh the harm I have identified to the LSCA, as well as the identified conflict with the relevant development plan policies.

Condition 1 is necessary in the interests of planning certainty. Condition 2 is necessary to clarify the approved plan details. A condition confirming the external materials (condition 3) is necessary, in the interests of the significance of the LSCA. Condition 4 is necessary in the interests of highway safety and for clarity, it refers to the development hereby permitted and the approved visibility splay plan (dated 27 October 2025).

Condition 5 is necessary in the interests of highway safety, and it also refers to porous gravel material in the interests of managing flood risk, sustainable drainage and the LSCA’s significance. Given the scale of the proposal, I am satisfied that there are sufficient provisions within the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, if necessary, to ensure the protection of wild birds. A planning condition is therefore not needed in this respect.

The proposed development would conflict with the development plan but material considerations, including the Framework and the benefits arising from the development, indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it.

The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Highway access site plan (TQRQM25111185802712); Elevation plan (undated); Cross section plan (undated); Visibility splay plan (dated 27 October 2025).

The external materials of the development hereby permitted shall be as stated in the application form dated 06 May 2025 (Ref: PP-13426890).

Before the development hereby permitted is brought into use, the means of vehicular access to the site shall be constructed in accordance with the approved visibility splay plan (dated 27 October 2025) and no structure, erection or planting exceeding 0.6m in height shall thereafter be placed within the visibility splays shown on that approved plan.

Prior to use commencing of the development hereby permitted, the first 1m (minimum) of driveway into the site shall be constructed of a non-migratory material to reduce the risk of loose materials being transferred to the highway. The remainder of the driveway surface shall be made of porous gravel material. The development shall thereafter be retained and maintained as such. ***End of Schedule***