Appeal 6005199

The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to the retention of the red and blue brick-stone wall. The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to retrospective reconfiguration of driveway to support car charging with 1 space for car, installation of a driveway rainwater drainage channel along lawn edge and planning permission is granted for retrospective reconfiguration of driveway to support car charging with 1 space for car, installation of a driveway rainwater drainage channel along lawn edge at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/096547 and the plans submitted with it.

The development the subject of this appeal is retrospective and is referred to below as the development.

The Council draws attention to “other unauthorised works” not included within the retrospective planning application the subject of this appeal. The Council does not refer to any enforcement action it has taken, or is taking, in relation to any unauthorised works.

A previous planning application1 for a different form of development to that the subject of this application was refused and dismissed at appeal2. A previous retrospective planning application3 with what the Council describes as “a near identical description of development,” but which was different to the development relating to the planning application the subject of this appeal, was refused in January 2024. 1 Application reference: DC/071648. 2 Appeal reference: APP/C4235/D/19/3230761. 3 Application reference: DC/090251.

The Council notes that the compensatory planting referred to in the description of development provided on the application form does not require planning permission.

The main issue in this case is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the [address] Conservation Area.

The appeal property comprises a tall, two-storey semi-detached period dwelling. It is brick-built, with a slate roof and presents traditional features, including ornate brick detailing, ground floor bay windows and prominent brick chimneys. It is located on a corner plot, at the junction of [address] and [address] and is set back from both roads behind front, side and rear gardens, which effectively wrap around the dwelling.

The appeal property is located within the [address] Conservation Area (CA). The CA comprises a green and leafy residential area, characterised by the presence of Victorian, Edwardian and early 20th Century dwellings set within spacious gardens. Tree and hedge-lined lanes and green spaces formed from the remains of the parkland settings of large early 19th Century residences, together with former parkland boundaries, all enhance the CA’s green, leafy and historic suburban character.

There are similar dwellings to the appeal dwelling along [address], albeit the appeal dwelling and Number [address] (which is attached to the appeal dwelling) appear a little more ornate. Houses tend to be set back from the road behind access driveways and front garden areas and have larger garden areas to the rear.

During my site visit, I noted that many dwellings in the area have been altered and/or extended and that most changes appear in keeping with the host dwelling and the surrounding area. I also observed there to be a notable variation in the front garden areas presented to the street. Occasional frontages appear dominated by driveways and parking areas, whereas others combine access and parking arrangements with very considerable areas of lawn, planting, trees and hedgerows.

Altogether, a balanced combination of access, parking arrangements and greenery appears characteristic of the area, with most properties exhibiting plentiful greenery to the front, all of which contributes to the CA’s verdant qualities and little apparent harm arises from access and parking arrangements.

Whilst trees and boundary features largely obscure the appeal dwelling from [address] and its entrance into [address], the house and frontage appear more prominently when seen directly from [address] itself. The relatively newly planted lawn stretches from the planting behind the low boundary wall all the way to the front elevation of the dwelling. This area of lawn combines with the presence of boundary planting both to the front of the property and to its shared front boundary with No 4, to create a strong sense of greenery, in keeping with the surrounding area.

Further, the lawn has been planted such that it extends relatively close to the entrance driveway, whereby the presence of a parking area and the driveway itself does not in any way appear unduly dominant. Rather, I find that the access and parking arrangements appear modest in scale and in appearance. They combine with the lawn and planting to provide for a green and spacious garden setting for the appeal dwelling; and appear in keeping with and contribute to, the surrounding area’s green qualities.

Taking all of the above into account, I find that the development, insofar as it relates to the reconfiguration of the driveway, preserves the character and appearance of the [address] Conservation Area and is not contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to [name]-1, SIE-3 or CS8 of the Stockport Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2011); to saved Policy HC1.3 of the Stockport Unitary Development Plan Review (2006, saved 2009); or to the Council’s Extensions and Alterations to Dwellings Supplementary Planning Document (2011), which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character.

The driveway entrance to the appeal property appears prominently as one travels along [address] towards its junction with [address]. The front boundary to both Nos 2 and [address] comprises a low stone wall. However, the original “stone hedge” (formed by an earth bank with random natural stone boulders) that comprised the driveway entrance into the appeal property has been replaced with modern low brick walls, described as being of red and blue brick-stone.

These new walls appear as stark, incongruous and unsympathetic additions alongside the low stone walls against which they are located.

During my site visit, I observed numerous examples along [address] of low stone front boundary walls combined with informal stone hedging leading into properties. These original boundary features make a positive and important contribution to the appearance and heritage of the CA.

During my site visit, I also noted that several properties along [address] have added brick entrances to stone boundary walls and similarly to the replacement walls at the appeal property, these appear unsympathetic to their surroundings.

Given the above, I consider that the replacement of the original stone and earth boundary features with red and blue brick-stone walls appears out of character with the appeal property and its surroundings and that as such, the development detracts from and fails to conserve the appearance of the [address] Conservation Area.

Having regard to paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and to Planning Practice Guidance, I consider that the harm to the character and appearance of the [address] Conservation Area would be less than substantial. This needs to be balanced against any public benefits the development may bring. There is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that the development results in public benefits that outweigh the harm identified.

Given the above, I find that the development, insofar as it relates to the retention of the red and blue brick-stone wall, harms the the character and appearance of the [address] Conservation Area, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to [name]-1, SIE-3 and CS8 of the Stockport Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2011); to saved Policy HC1.3 of the Stockport Unitary Development Plan Review (2006, saved 2009); and to the Council’s Extensions and Alterations to Dwellings Supplementary Planning Document (2011), which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character.

The appellants, in support of their case, refer to the previous stone hedge being structurally unstable, posing a maintenance and safety issue. However, there is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that the development undertaken comprised the only way in which this issue might have been addressed.

For the reasons given above, the appeal does not succeed insofar as it relates to the retention of the red and blue brick-stone wall. The appeal does succeed insofar as it relates to the retrospective reconfiguration of the driveway to support car charging with one space for a car and the installation of a driveway rainwater drainage channel along the lawn edge.