Appeal 6003134

The appeal is dismissed.

Both parties agree that the development is retrospective, and following my site visit I see no reason to disagree. I have treated the appeal accordingly.

I have taken the site address from the appeal form as it more accurately describes the site.

I have taken the description of development from the decision notice, subject to minor alteration to remove reference to matters which do not constitute a description of development, as it more accurately and concisely describes the development to which the appeal relates.

Whilst comments have been made in respect of whether sufficient and accurate details have been included within the submitted drawings, I consider the plans before me and my observations from the site visit to be suitable to assess the development without being prejudicial to interested parties.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the Mapesbury Conservation Area, including the effect on protected trees.

The appeal site is within the Mapesbury Conservation Area (the ‘Conservation Area’). The statutory duty set out in section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the ‘Act’) requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area. Insofar as is relevant to this appeal, the Conservation Area draws its significance from, amongst other matters, the open nature of front plots and their soft landscaping, its open and spacious character, and the contribution of front boundary features, including brick walls and piers.

There is an existing tree to the front of the property, subject to a Tree Preservation Order. At my site visit, I observed that this tree was of significant height and spread, and visible for some distance along [site address] . Front boundary treatments along [site address] are typically constructed of brick, edged with piers of varying heights, widths, and extent. Many of these piers are capped, with existing caps demonstrating a variety of design approaches. A number of existing properties display metal railings set into coping stones on a brick wall along the boundary frontage.

The development has included an altered brick wall at the front boundary, the addition of metal railings, the erection of capped boundary piers, the installation of block paving, and the installation of flower beds, including a bed around the identified tree. Coping stones have been installed on the brick wall set on edged brick. The development has resulted in an increase in the extent of soft landscaping to the front of the property. At my site visit I observed that the block paving and the brick wall enclosing the associated bed has been installed in close proximity to the tree.

On the evidence before me, prior to the works taking place the area to the front of the appeal site was – excepting the existing tree and a small area around it – largely hard surfaced with broken and uneven tarmac, with a brick wall to the front. There is no evidence before me to suggest that, when the previous tarmac was present, the site included a pathway to the front door.

Given its height and extent, and visibility along [site address] , the tree at the front of the appeal site acts to soften surrounding development and provides a verdant backdrop to the residential area. As a result, the tree appears as an attractive specimen that makes a significant contribution to the character and appearance of the area, including – given its prominent location at the front of the property – to the significance of the Conservation Area.

[name] acknowledge that the development has not entailed works to the tree trunk itself, the development has nevertheless resulted in the removal of existing hardstanding and the installation of block paving, and a bed set behind a low brick wall, in close proximity to the tree. There are limited details before me with regards how the existing hard surfacing was removed, how the paving and bed were installed, and how the alterations to the front wall were undertaken. However, the Council’s concerns that such works would have likely involved excavation and other construction works within the tree’s Root Protection Area (‘RPA’), where tree roots will likely be present, alongside potential levels changes resulting from the works, have not been substantively challenged by the appellant. Equally, no assessment is before me as to the post-construction effect of the development on the tree.

Given the role of the root network in water absorption, it makes an important contribution to the health of the tree. Excavation works within an RPA can result in damage to roots, and altered ground levels can adversely affect water flows and thus absorption by the root network. Given this, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I consider it likely that the development has adversely affected the root network of the existing tree, and adversely affected its potential for water absorption. This will likely be detrimental to the long term health of the tree and thus result in its deterioration, place increased pressure for its future removal, and harm the character and appearance of the area.

As works have already taken place, the use of a planning condition to require the future submission of an arboricultural assessment would not be appropriate as I cannot conclude that the development subject to this appeal has been undertaken without adverse impact to the tree. A condition would not mitigate this harm.

Although the boundary wall at the front of the appeal site is somewhat lower, and the piers somewhat narrower, than the other examples identified by the Council, given the variety of boundary walling and piers of varied extent along [site address] neither the brick frontage nor the piers appear out of place when set against nearby development, nor undermine the established rhythm of the street scene. By contrast, when set against both historic and more recent nearby examples, the difference in scale and appearance is minor. Given their similarity to the historic examples identified, the wall and piers respond to their historic context.

In addition, whilst the pier caps are smaller in height and extent than some nearby examples, they are perceived within the street scene as part of a varied set of pier caps and, given their similarity in overall form and appearance, the design pays clear regard to local precedent. Equally, whilst metal railings set into coping stones may no longer be the prevalent boundary treatment along [site address] , the presence of existing black metal railings set into coping stones on other properties results in both the railings and coping stones at the appeal site appearing of appropriate context within the street scene, and given their design and overall scale the railings integrate effectively within the development and wider area.

On the evidence before me, the front boundary wall and hard surfacing that was present prior to the development taking place did not contribute positively to the Conservation Area. Given this, alongside my conclusions above, the design and detailing of the boundary wall, piers, capping and railing that form part of the development subject of this appeal has not detracted from the contribution of front boundary features to the Conservation Area. As such, in this particular regard the development has not resulted in harm to the significance of the Conservation Area.

I acknowledge that the Mapesbury Conservation Area Design Guide (2018) (the ‘[name]) seeks for walls, caps and piers to match the original boundary design for the property and the road. [name] have not been directed to precise detailing of the original front boundary at the appeal site, the [name] also identifies that caps can be a different design depending on the house, street and road, and I have found the caps to be acceptable. In addition, although other better preserved front boundary treatments are somewhat higher, with broader piers and without railings, I have found that the development is appropriate in the context of nearby development and is not harmful to the significance of the Conservation Area. Given the absence of harm to the significance of the Conservation Area arising from these particular aspects of the development, in these specific circumstances I afford this conflict with the [name] limited weight.

In addition, the development has not entailed any alteration to the extent of off-street parking provision nor included a new access point, but resurfaced existing hardstanding. Nor are substantive details before me with regards a historic front pathway. As such, the [name] guidelines for 50% of the front garden to be soft landscaped and for lost front pathways to be reinstated are non-determinative in the case of this appeal. In any event, given the increase in soft landscaping and the lack of an existing front pathway, when compared to the pre-development situation the development has preserved the character and appearance of the Conservation Area in this particular regard.

As a result of its effect on the protected tree, the development results in harm to the character and appearance of the area, including to the significance of the Conservation Area. [name] acknowledge that on the evidence before me the development reinstates a more characteristic frontage to that which preceded it, this is insufficient to outweigh the harm identified.

In terms of the National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’), I find the harm to the Conservation Area is ‘less than substantial’, at the lower end of the spectrum. Whilst the development provides a more characteristic frontage, a brick wall and paving with improved permeability and structural integrity that may improve occupant and visitor accessibility, and includes additional planting compared to the previous situation, even were I to find these matters to be public benefits, this would not be sufficient to outweigh the harm I have identified and the great weight I have given to the heritage asset’s conservation.

Therefore, the development results in harm to the character and appearance of the Mapesbury Conservation Area, including its effect on protected trees. The development therefore fails to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area and is contrary to the relevant provisions of Policies DMP1, BHC1 and BGI2 of the Brent Local Plan 2019-2041 (2022) (the ‘BLP’). Amongst other matters, these policies require development proposals to seek to avoid harm to heritage assets and to complement the locality, and that sufficient information is provided where a development proposal could affect existing trees.

Although not referenced in the decision notice, the Council’s Officer Report and Statement also make reference to a perceived conflict with Policy BT2 of the BLP and the relevant section of the Domestic Vehicle Footway Crossover Policy (the ‘Crossover Policy’). However, on the evidence before me, this policy and guidance relate to proposals for either off-street parking or for the construction of crossovers respectively. [name] have found the development relates to the resurfacing of an area of existing hardstanding and other external alterations, and does not propose new off-street parking or crossovers, neither Policy BT2 of the BLP nor the Crossover Policy have been determinative to my decision.

I acknowledge that the development may not result in harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers or to highway safety, however these matters weigh neutrally in the overall balance. [name] acknowledge there is some local support for the development, this does not justify a development that is contrary to the requirements of the Act.

Comments relating to the resultant benefits of the development with respect to individual circumstances are acknowledged. In determining this appeal, I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty in Section 149 of the Equality Act

This requires me to consider the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it. Protected characteristics include a person’s age, disability or pregnancy. Whilst the development may provide the opportunity to advance its aims by meeting the needs of those with these identified characteristics, when set against the harm identified to character and appearance dismissing this appeal is a proportionate response in this case.

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