Appeal 6004443

The appeal is dismissed.

I have been appointed to determine two appeals at the same address, which have been made by the same appellant. This decision relates to a scheme at the front of the property; the other, which relates to the rear of the building, is the subject of a separate decision ([name]: 6004434).

The development was described on the planning application form as follows: This application seeks to keep changes made to the front yard without planning permission, referred here as “as built” drawings: Keep “as built”, alterations to the existing ground levels and installation of new paving slabs. Keep “as built”, minor alterations to the common entrance stairs and retaining wall to the front light-well, (necessity works to accommodate the new ground levels). Keep “as built”, new metal, black bin enclosure. Keep “as built”, brick pier at the party line between No’s 13/14 Also, this application seeks approval for “as proposed” changes to the “as built” drawings, referred here as “as proposed”. “[name]”, alter the “as built” front garden wall by adding a new brick pier and new cast iron pedestrian gate. “[name]”, remove the “as built” dropped kerb and reinstate the pavement as original. “[name]”, create a narrow planter to manage rainwater runoff from the front yard. Also, install a new Aco, slot type, drain at the front yard’s edge with pavement. “[name]”, remove “as built” coping stones from the top of the garden wall/ piers and replace them with new copings that match the original design.

An amended wording was used during the appeal; I have used that in the banner heading above as it provides a more concise description of the scheme. I have made further minor alterations, including removing the reference to permission being sought retrospectively for those elements of the scheme which have already been carried out, as retention is not in itself descriptive of development. Nevertheless, I was able to see those parts of the development which have already been carried out – described as “as built” in the longer original description of the scheme quoted above – in place during my site visit.

The main issues are: • The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the Eton Conservation Area (“the ECA”); and • Whether the development would promote and support the use of sustainable means of travel.

The appeal relates to a self-contained flat on the lower ground and ground floors of a four-storey mid-terrace building on [address], a narrow private residential road on the south-eastern side of England’s Lane.

[name] have described above, the appeal scheme has already been carried out in part. The brick boundary walls and piers, brick pavers, border planters and cobble pavement, and terracotta stair tiles have been removed. New brick boundary walls and piers have been built, though the majority of the street frontage – some 4 or 5m – is open. Almost the whole front garden area has been paved with dark grey-blue porcelain tiles, and York stone slabs installed to the front steps. A black metal storage unit for refuse and recycling has been installed along the boundary with No 12. The scheme before me includes further changes on top of those already made: building an additional brick pier with coping stone to match the those at No 12 (and replacing the copings on the two existing piers to match) to create a gateway with iron gate; creating a 0.4m wide L-shaped planted border around two edges of the garden; and inserting a slot drain into the porcelain tiles to direct rain water into the perimeter planter.

The site is within the ECA, and I have a statutory duty to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, the National Planning Policy Framework (“the Framework”) states that they should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance (paragraph 202). It goes on to advise that any harm or loss requires clear and convincing justification (paragraph 213) and that any harm that is less than substantial must be weighed against the public benefit of the proposal (paragraph 215).

The ECA is a predominantly residential area, with buildings of a variety of styles and sizes reflecting its relatively unplanned development from the mid-19th century to the beginning of the 20th century, though large detached and semi-detached Victorian villas are the predominant type within the area. The combination of mature street trees and generous rear gardens gives much of the area a verdant character. Notwithstanding the variety in building scale and style, where groups were developed together the use of common materials and design themes often gives consistency within clusters.

[address] is separated from England’s Lane by a line of mature trees and dense planting, and a brick boundary wall. The Council’s 2002 Eton Conservation Area Statement (“the ECAS”) describes the street as having been built during the 1880s, with perhaps more variety in style and materials than found in other clusters. All the buildings within [address] are identified in the ECAS as making a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the conservation area. The enclosure provided by frontage walls and gate piers contributes a degree of consistency to the street, despite the variety in the buildings themselves.

Well-defined garden boundaries (often in brick walling) with mature hedging and trees in front gardens are identified in the ECAS as one of the characteristics of the conservation area. The removal of boundary walls to provide frontage parking within [address] is also highlighted in the ECAS as a negative element of the townscape which has detracted from the character and appearance of the ECA. The ECAS goes on to set out guidelines for various types of development within the ECA; among other things, it advises that development should respect the original style of boundary, which should generally be retained and reinstated where they have been lost, and that further loss of front boundary walls and conversion of front gardens into hardstanding parking areas will be resisted.

While the proposed development would, if carried out in full, reinstate part of the boundary wall which has been removed, it would still leave a considerable part of the front boundary – some 3.2m or so in width – open to the street. I acknowledge that around half the properties on [address] are at least in part open to the street already (the appellant suggests that the figure is approximately 60%, but that appears to be based on including this appeal scheme)1, but these have led to a degradation of the quality of the ECA as described in the ECAS and do not in themselves weigh in favour of further harm and degradation.

Although a planted border would be installed, almost all of the garden area at No 13 would still be given over to hard surfacing; the development would therefore lead to a harshening of the environment, at odds with the generally verdant character of the ECA. It would also conflict with advice in the Council’s 2021 Home Improvements Camden Planning Guidance that, in order to protect the positive contribution they can make to the character and attractiveness of an area, and the support they provide to green and wildlife corridors, front gardens should have no more than 30% of hard surface cover.

I acknowledge that the boundary wall and piers, and other elements of the front garden such as the paving, planters and steps previously in place were not original features; indeed, based on the photographs submitted by the appellant it is evident that some of those elements were in a poor condition. However, that does not justify allowing development which would contribute to a further erosion of the character of the ECA. The development would not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the ECA. The harm to the Conservation Area’s significance as a designated heritage asset would be less than substantial. In line with the Framework’s provisions, I consider that the provision of dedicated off-road parking would essentially be a private benefit for the appellant. In facilitating the 1 The appellant’s photographs highlighted open driveways at eight other properties – Nos 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 15 – of the [address]; that is consistent with my own observations during my site visit. provision of a private electric vehicle charging point the scheme may support a transition away from fossil fuel use; this would be a public benefit though, in view of the fact that it would only relate to a single household’s vehicle (or vehicles) it would have a limited impact. Such public benefits as might arise from the development would not outweigh the harm I have found.

I therefore conclude that the development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the ECA, contrary to Policies D1 and D2 of the 2017 Camden Local Plan (“the CLP”). Together, and among other things, these policies seek to ensure that development contributes positively in complementing local character, whilst preserving or enhancing the historic environment and heritage assets including conservation areas. For the same reasons, the proposal would also fail to accord with the provisions of the Framework which seek to protect and conserve heritage assets.

Policy T1 of the CLP seeks to promote sustainable transport by prioritising walking, cycling and use of public transport. Policy T2 seeks to limit the provision of on-site parking, and to resist the development of boundary treatments and gardens to provide vehicle crossovers and on-site parking. I have addressed the second of these matters in dealing with the previous main issue, so the loss of boundary treatment and garden space to private vehicle parking is already noted.

The appellant has argued that in the absence of private off-street parking they would need to park on the pavement in front of the property, thereby obstructing pedestrians. During my site visit I observed some vehicles parked in that manner (though equally many were parked on the other side of [address] away from the houses). Even so, I found that it was possible for me to pass along the footway reasonably easily. I acknowledge that that might not be the case for someone with lesser mobility, or even pushing a pushchair but, had parked vehicles meant that it had been to enter the carriageway instead, as [address] is a private road with very low levels of traffic it would have been perfectly safe, if slightly inconvenient, to do so. Essentially, I consider that the development therefore prioritises private car use rather than sustainable means of travel.

As such, it conflicts with Policies T1, and T2 of the CLP, the principal relevant provisions of which I have set out above, and with Policy A1 which seeks to manage the impact, including the transport impacts, of development.

For the reasons set out above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.