Appeal 6003619

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal site comprises the former [name] which, I understand replaced a previous public house, but which was partially demolished following fire damage. The building was granted planning permission to be extended and converted into seven self-contained flats with extensions and other alterations1 (‘the original permission’). A landscaping scheme was approved in accordance with a condition of the original permission2. The approved landscaping scheme is set out on drawing no. A6ER-PP1-01 [name] (‘the approved landscaping scheme’). It depicts one car parking space and three areas of grass, on the site frontage, with hedgerows between the grass and the pavement and on the southern boundary, along with seven trees.

The building has subsequently been converted into flats, but the whole site frontage has been hard surfaced, contrary to the approved landscaping scheme. A planning application was therefore submitted with a drawing which depicts the existing unauthorised arrangement and the proposed landscaping. This appeal follows the refusal of that application.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and the area, including whether it would preserve or enhance the character or 1 Ref: 222769FUL and 231554VAR 2 Ref: 231151CND Appeal Decision: 6003619 appearance of the Northolt Village Green Conservation Area (‘the NVGCA’); and • whether the proposal would provide appropriate living conditions for the occupants of the host property, with particular regard to outdoor amenity space.

Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas. Paragraphs 212 and 213 of the National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework’) state that great weight shall be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets, such as conservation areas, and that harm to their significance requires clear and convincing justification.

It continues at paragraph 216 that the effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account, and that in weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect them, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the asset.

The NVGCA comprises large areas of open space, particularly around the statutorily listed [name], along with scattered buildings either side of the highway and brook. The informal layout, and often spacious setting, of the buildings, many of which are set back behind gardens, the open spaces, and the landscaping, hark back to the rural village that Northolt once was. These elements all contribute to its significance as a designated heritage asset.

The Northolt Village Green Conservation Area Management Plan 2008 sets out that threats to this asset include the conversion of green-space, including front or side gardens, to hardstanding, and the loss of front walls and fences, often to create parking for cars.

The appeal site is located next to an area of open space, towards the northern edge of the NVGCA. The building is set back from [address] broadly in line with a modern terrace at Nos 8 to 12, with a further area of open space beyond, after which the tranquil, village-like qualities give way to a busier, more densely developed, suburban environment.

The proposed site frontage would include a small central lawn behind a short section of hedgerow, with driveways and pathways between it and the side boundaries. As a result of the scheme, most of the site frontage would be covered by hardstanding, including along the site’s southern boundary, and no trees would be planted.

Thus, whilst the proposal would be an improvement on the existing unauthorised arrangement, the paucity of soft landscaping would give the site a stark and largely unalleviated appearance in the streetscene. That would include views from the pavement next to the site, and approaching it from the south, where there would be an abrupt and jarring contrast with the much more informal, well-landscaped environment. For similar reasons, it would harm the setting of the host building, Appeal Decision: 6003619 which the principal parties agree is a ‘locally listed’ heritage asset. Given that the impact would be on the building’s setting, the scale of that harm would be limited.

Although the appellant has provided photographs showing that the site frontage was previously surfaced with concrete, based on the limited evidence before me, that surfacing was largely behind a post and rail fence, which helped soften its impact on the streetscene. The proposal would also have a far starker and more urbanizing impact compared to the approved landscaping scheme.

Whilst the site frontage at Nos 8 to 12 is largely dominated by hardstanding, which is at odds with the NVGCA’s prevailing character, it does include narrow strips of lawn and two trees. Moreover, I have few details before me of that site’s planning history or how it appeared previously.

For these reasons, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the host property and the area, and it would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the NVGCA. In harming this part of the NVGCA and the qualities which contribute to its significance, the scheme would harm its character and appearance as a whole.

The scheme would therefore conflict with Policy HC1 of the London Plan 2021 (‘LP’), which requires proposals to conserve the significance of heritage assets; and with Policy 7C of the Ealing Development Management Development Plan Document 2013 (‘EDMD’) which sets out that development shall conserve the significance of heritage assets, and shall retain and enhance characteristic features in conservation area. In the language of the Framework, the harm caused to the NVGCA would be less than substantial, but nevertheless of considerable importance and weight. I return to this later in my decision.

It would also conflict with the requirement for high quality design, which complements existing detailing, responds to local character and distinctiveness, and has a positive visual impact in [name] 7B and 7.4, and [name] D3 and D4; along with the broadly similar approach in Policy DAA of the emerging Ealing Draft Local Plan. It would also fail to comply with the Framework’s stance at paragraph 140 that the quality of approved development shall not be materially diminished between permission and completion as a result of changes being made to the permitted scheme.

Given its limited dimensions, and its location next to a driveway, pathway and highway, the proposed lawn would not provide a useable, private outdoor amenity space for the host’s residents. However, I observed that there are lightwells to the front and rear of the building which provide some of them with small, covered, private amenity spaces. Moreover, as described at paragraphs 5.21 and 5.22 of the appellant’s statement, there are public open spaces nearby, and whilst they are not private, they provide large, attractive areas to sit or play.

Additionally, whilst the approved landscaping scheme depicted three areas of lawn behind hedgerows, given their location on the plot frontage next to the highway, in my view their value was predominantly as landscaping features rather than as outdoor amenity areas for the occupants. Appeal Decision: 6003619

In that context, I am satisfied that the proposal would not result in poor living conditions for the occupants of the host property, including the upper floor flats. From the limited evidence before me, I cannot be certain whether the outdoor amenity space as a whole complies with the numerical standards in LP Policy D6, or whether the scheme meets the space standards referred to in EDMD Policy 3.5.

However, for the above reasons, I am satisfied that the scheme would not conflict with the broad thrust of those policies which is to provide high quality, fit for purpose housing, and that it would not result in worse living conditions for the occupants compared to the original permission. Neither would it conflict with the Framework’s requirement to provide a high standard of amenity.

Whilst the appellant says that the proposal would reduce the extent of car parking on the site frontage, that existing arrangement is contrary to the approved landscaping scheme. Unlike the approved landscaping scheme, the proposal would however provide space for up to five motorcycles to be parked off-road, which would align with the Framework’s stance on promoting more sustainable modes of transport. This is a very modest benefit in the overall planning balance.

I have found that the scheme would not result in unacceptable living conditions for the occupants of the host property, but that it would cause limited harm to the setting of the building, which is a non-designated heritage asset, and harm to the significance of the NVGCA, contrary to the development plan.

In accordance with the Framework, I have given great weight to the conservation of the NVGCA. Having regard to its paragraph 215, the scheme’s very modest public benefit would not outweigh the less than substantial harm that I have found it would cause. The scheme would therefore also conflict with the Framework.

Summing up, the scheme would conflict 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. For these reasons, and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed.