Appeal 6003010

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted to change the existing vehicular access to a pedestrian width and to construct a new vehicular access at [site address] , [site address] , Crich, [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2025/0580, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan; Block Plan.

The materials to be used in the alterations to the wall hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing wall.

The proposal hereby approved shall not be brought into use until the access, parking and turning facilities have been provided as shown on the Block Plan.

The vehicular access hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the existing vehicular access to the site has been permanently closed in accordance with details as shown on the Block Plan.

The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed alterations to the boundary wall on the character and appearance of the Crich Conservation Area.

The appeal property is a detached, stone-built house situated on the eastern side of [address]. It has a side elevation set against the rear of the pavement and a front elevation facing south down the hill. It is located opposite to a primary school and between two similarly sited detached houses as No 14 and No 18. The property has a gated vehicular access immediately to the front of the house and an ivy-covered stone wall along the boundary with the highway. There is a bus stop sign against the wall, roughly mid-way along the property boundary. The site lies within the Crich Conservation Area (CA).

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), in Paragraph 215, indicates that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

Policy EN4 of the recently adopted Amber Valley Borough Local Plan 2022-2040 (AVLP) indicates that the Council will support development proposals which conserve and enhance the significance of the Borough’s heritage assets.

Saved Policy EN27 of the Amber Valley Borough Local Plan (LP), adopted in 2006, states that planning permission will only be granted for development proposals within Conservation Areas if they would contribute to the preservation or enhancement of the Conservation Area.

The Council contends that the development would result in harm to the character and appearance of the CA, by virtue of loss of a long continuous enclosing section of an important stone boundary wall, which currently makes a strong contribution to the character of the Conservation Area, which would not be outweighed by any public benefits.

The Appellant contends that the wall would not be lost. Instead, most of it would be retained, and since almost all of it is currently obscured by ivy, and cannot be seen, the wall cannot contribute to the character of the CA. Furthermore, creating the new gap in the wall for the entrance would be beneficial, due to the stonework being revealed by removal of the ivy. Finally, the entrance would be no wider than gaps in the frontage walls which occur elsewhere in the vicinity.

Nos 14, 16 and [address] share a number of common features that establish a particular character along this part of the highway. These features include alignment and aspect, relatively low boundary walls to the highway, and wide vehicular accesses. The houses have side elevations that abut, or nearly abut, the highway. The front boundaries at Nos 14 and 18 are around 0.6 – 1.0 metre high, while that at the appeal property is ivy-covered and may currently be up to around 1.2 metres high. Finally, Nos 14 and 18 have wide, open vehicular access leading to parking areas at the front of the houses. The equivalent vehicular access at the appeal property is currently gated but appears of equal width to that at the neighbouring houses on either side.

The proposed development would entail reducing the width of the existing gated access to approximately 1.0 metre only. The rest of the existing access would be infilled with an extension to the wall using reclaimed stone derived from both the reduction in height of the boundary wall along its length to around 1.0 metre only, and by creating a new vehicular access at the southern end of the site.

I consider that the removal of the ivy along the boundary wall, along with its reduction in height to around 1 metre, would bring it in line with the character and appearance of the walls at the neighbouring houses on either side. This would enhance the character and appearance of this part of the CA. In addition, the new vehicular opening at the southern end of the property would be in keeping with the similar openings at Nos 14 and 18. The existing parking area at the front of the appeal property would instead become partly a narrow pedestrian access only and would enable remodelling of the garden area to the house as well as creating a new parking and turning area for cars.

The Highway Authority notes that visibility would be no worse than the existing vehicular access and that the proposal would provide space within the site for manoeuvring, which is a positive. Moreover, the access will still only serve a single dwelling. I concur with this view and consider that the improved vehicular access would be beneficial to highway safety by way of both improved visibility and a design for the parking/turning area that would enable vehicles to enter and exit the site in a forward gear. The Highway Authority has recommended conditions to ensure that these improvements and changes are completed before the new access is brought into use. I have incorporated these conditions into my decision above. I have not added a condition requiring that the wall be reduced to 0.6 metres in height because I do not consider such a significant reduction to be necessary in this case, and because the proposed height of 1.0 metre would still be in character and of similar appearance to the walls of the neighbouring properties.

In conclusion, I find that the proposal would preserve, and arguably enhance, the character and appearance of the CA and would, on this basis, have a positive effect on the heritage asset. In addition, it would have the significant benefit of improvement to highway safety along this section of [address]. It would not conflict with Policy EN4 of the AVLP or with Saved Policy EN27 of the LP or with Policy relating to heritage assets in the Framework, Accordingly, I allow this appeal subject to the conditions added.

I have attached a condition relating to plans because it is necessary that the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. I have attached a further condition relating to materials in the interests of the visual amenities of the area. [name] have attached conditions relating to provision of new parking facilities in the interests of highway safety.