Appeal 6004132

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for relocation of boundary wall and widening of driveway at [site address] , [site address] , Barrow upon Soar, Loughborough, Leicestershire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/2189/2, subject to the following conditions:

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out only in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan (scale 1:1250); [name] as Proposed (T.R.2).

Only those materials specified on approved plan T.R.2 and at section 10 of the application form shall be used when carrying out the development hereby permitted.

In the interests of clarity and conciseness I have, for the purposes of determination, used the description of development as specified on the Council’s Decision Notice as opposed to that given on the application form. I am content that no party with a potential interest in the outcome of the appeal is prejudiced by me taking this approach.

An amended proposed plan1 (the amended plan) is appended to the appellant’s Appeal Statement, which incorporates an area of block paving and altered landscaping details. The amended plan is dated to indicate that it was produced following the Council’s decision to refuse planning permission. In the interests of fairness, the appeal process cannot be used to evolve a scheme. Thus, as the 1 Ref: T.R.3 amended plan materially alters the proposal that was determined by the Council, I have not accepted it for the purposes of determining this appeal.

As the site is located within the Barrow upon Soar Conservation Area (the CA), I have had regard to the statutory duty set out under Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) which requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the relevant conservation area’s character or appearance.

Since the Council resolved to refuse planning permission, the Charnwood Local Plan 2021-37 (the CLP) was adopted in January 2026 and now comprises a part of the development plan. Given that the CLP was at a very advanced stage when the Council resolved to refuse planning permission, and when also factoring in the nature of the determining issues in this appeal, I have not considered it necessary to request observations from the parties as regards any implications of the adoption.

Whether or not the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA.

The significance and special interest of the CA as a designated heritage asset is drawn, in-part, from a prevalence of street-fronting historic buildings and boundary walls that provide a clear sense of enclosure along various routes through it. This significance and special interest is further reinforced by the predominance of traditional building materials – such as red brick, granite, and slate – and by an abundance of well-established planted features.

The appeal property is served by a front garden raised above [address] and enclosed by a low-level retaining wall of granite and slate. Vehicular access to the site is situated between this wall and the neighbouring property’s access. Following the recently approved removal of on-site trees, the front garden now contains limited planting, largely confined to a short hedge along the highway boundary. The retaining wall, traditional in appearance, forms part of a sequence of similar boundary treatments interspersed with vehicular accesses along the southern side of [address]. In its current guise, the frontage of the site contributes positively to the character and appearance of the CA.

The proposal seeks to reposition the retaining wall to facilitate a widened driveway. A small portion of the front garden would also be lowered and replaced with hard surfacing. By virtue of the modest scale of the proposal, any effects on character and appearance would be limited and localised. This is especially the case given the low height of the existing wall, the absence of substantial established planting on the site, and the manner in which returning sections of the wall would be visible in the backdrop of views from either side of the driveway along [address]. Nevertheless, the loss of a short length of traditional boundary walling – and the associated reduction in enclosure – would result in a minor adverse effect on the CA’s character and appearance and thereby cause a small degree of harm to its heritage significance.

The level of harm to the significance of the CA would, under the terms of the National Planning Policy Framework (December 2024) (the Framework), constitute “less than substantial harm” that, in my judgement, would fall at the lowest end of that scale. The Framework requires such harm to a designated heritage asset to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

In considering public benefits, it is relevant that [address] is a relatively narrow but well-used route with footways and on-street parking/waiting restrictions. The proposed widening of the driveway would enable two vehicles to park side by side within the site, rather than in tandem as currently. This change would likely reduce instances where a vehicle must be reversed onto the highway to enable another vehicle to enter or exit the property. A small reduction in demand for on-street parking would also reasonably be anticipated.

Accordingly, given the particular circumstances of the site and the expected reduction in vehicular manoeuvres and on-street parking, the proposal would deliver modest yet meaningful public benefits in terms of highway and pedestrian safety. In my judgement, these benefits are sufficient to outweigh the minor level of less than substantial harm identified. This is notwithstanding the great weight the Framework places on the conservation of designated heritage assets.

The proposal therefore complies with the historic environment conservation and enhancement policies of the Framework. It also satisfactorily accords with Policies DS4 and EV8 of the CLP, and with Policy BuS4 of the Barrow upon Soar Neighbourhood Plan 2016-2028, in so far as these policies seek to promote responsiveness to local distinctiveness, conservation of the historic environment, and adherence to the Barrow upon Soar Village Design Statement. Moreover, the proposal accords with the development plan when read as a whole and material considerations do not lead me to a decision otherwise.

In the interests of certainty, a condition specifying the approved plans is necessary. In the interests of conserving the character and appearance of the CA, a condition requiring the utilisation of the materials proposed – to include the re-use of slate and granite from the demolished section of wall and the use of tarmac to match the existing surface – is also reasonable and necessary to impose.

For the above reasons, the appeal is allowed such that planning permission is granted subject to conditions.