Appeal 6003982

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the partial demolition of front garden wall to create 1no. off-street parking space, including erection of new retaining walls at [site address] , [name] [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P25/02110/HH, subject to the following conditions:

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos: 25/004 10 [name] (street elevation as proposed), 24/004 7 [name] (site plan 1 to 50 as proposed), and 25/004 4 [name] (site plan 1 to 200 as proposed).

A replacement tree, the species, size, and location of which is to be first approved in writing by the local planning authority, shall be planted in the first planting season following the completion of the development. If within a period of 2 years from the date of the planting of the tree, that tree, or any tree planted in replacement of it, is removed, uprooted or destroyed and dies or becomes in the opinion of the local planning authority seriously damaged or defective, another tree of the same species and size as the one originally planted shall be planted at the same place.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The Council explains in their evidence that the only element of the scheme that requires express planning permission is the erection of the retaining walls. In so saying, they are therefore satisfied that the removal of a stretch of the boundary wall, some hedging and a tree and the installation of an electric vehicle charging point do not require express permission or consent. I have no reason to disagree. I have proceeded on this basis.

The main issue is the effect of the proposals on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site is a detached dwelling in a row of four of a similar design and age. They are built of pale Cotswold stone, with an almost continuous low front boundary wall. The site is accessed via a shared gravelled drive, leading to individual verdant front gardens mostly laid to grass with the occasional small tree. Each of the houses has allocated parking spaces and benefits from a garage space within a detached block. The consistency of the building type, arrangement, composition, and scale, along with the verdant front gardens, contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site and the row of houses of which it is part are set back from the main through road via the shared drive. The positioning of a pair of houses and the village hall partially conceals them from public vantage points. The setting of the appeal site and in particular the location of the proposed development is therefore limited to close range views from within and in front of the aforementioned group.

The Council confirm that the regrading of the frontage would be acceptable. I agree with this conclusion. Indeed, the planning permission granted for the development of the four houses included parking on frontages. Whilst this was later altered to include parking provision elsewhere on the development, this suggests that this use of the property frontages was acceptable in principle.

The use of a coherent materials palette would allow the new walls to integrate seamlessly with the existing which are a characterful element of the site’s setting. Use of the same gravel material as is currently used on the shared drive would further this assimilation and prevent any sense of the setting being dominated by hardstanding. The partial removal of the front boundary wall would interrupt the continuous nature of it. However, this would not be so significant as to result in a harmful effect, and the overarching harmony of the wider site would be retained.

The officer’s report refers to the loss of soft landscaping to the frontage of the appeal site resulting in the proposed development causing appreciable visual harm. In particular it references the removal of a tree and a hedgerow adjacent the front boundary wall. On my site visit, neither the tree nor the affected hedge were in situ, which is confirmed in the appellant’s grounds of appeal. I understand that whilst these contributed positively towards the verdant character and appearance of the locality, neither were covered by a Tree Preservation Order. I refer to my earlier comments in regard to requirements for express consent.

With this and the above in mind, the proposals would not harm the character or appearance of the area. They would thus comply with the requirements of Policies PSP1 and PSP2 of the South Gloucestershire Local Plan: Policies, Sites and Places Plan (2017). These require development to respond constructively to the buildings and characteristics that make a positive contribution to the distinctiveness of an area. It would further comply with the requirements of Policy CS1 of South Gloucestershire Local Plan: [name] (2013) which seeks to ensure that development proposals are informed by respect and enhance the character, distinctiveness and amenity of the site and its context.

The site is located within the Cotswolds National Landscape (CNL). Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 requires that regard be had to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of National Landscapes. Section 245 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 seeks to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area. These purposes also include increasing the understanding and enjoyment by the public of the special qualities of the National Landscape.

Whilst alluding to some effect, the Council has confirmed that this would not extend to harm arising out of the proposals to the CNL. I agree, given the localised nature of the setting of the appeal site, the scale of the works and the otherwise semi built up feel of its immediate surroundings. I am therefore satisfied that the proposals would not unacceptably impinge on the duty to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the CNL.

No objections were raised in regard to the highways impacts of the proposals and I see no reason to disagree given the private and lightly trafficked nature of the access to the development, onto which the parking area would lead. There would be sufficient space to manoeuvre in and out of the proposed parking space safely. Any maintenance, such as the migration of gravel material, would constitute a civil matter and indeed it is noted that the existing shared driveway is currently gravelled. Any noise and disturbance from works would be time limited. The totality of the scheme is also limited mainly the front garden. Drainage does not appear to be an evidenced local problem, and the scheme is proposing loose gravel. Restrictive covenants are matters that sit outside of the planning process.

Other than the standard time limit condition, it is necessary to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans for certainty and enforcement. The Council has suggested a condition requiring a replacement tree. Given the positive contribution that the former tree made to the character of the development, the reinstatement of this feature would be welcomed. This would further satisfy the requirements of PSP3 which requires developments to minimise the loss of existing vegetation.

For the reasons set out, the appeal scheme would comply with the development plan. I have therefore recommended it be allowed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed. Planning permission is therefore granted, subject to the conditions set out above.