Appeal 6005910

The appeal is dismissed.

I have amended the description of development in the banner heading to that used on the decision notice and that by the appellant on their appeal form. This is a more accurate description of the proposed development than that given on the application form and ensures that it accurately captures the scope of the proposal.

The hard landscape works to widen the existing drive have already been completed. I have therefore determined the appeal on the basis of its retention.

The planning application form states that works are complete; however, while I saw that there was a car parked approximately centrally on the driveway, I did not see what is described by the appellant on the submitted plans as a ‘park bay line’. I have therefore determined the appeal on the basis of the submitted plans and that a ‘park bay line’ would be painted.

The area is subject to an Article 4(2) Direction (2010) which, amongst other matters, controls the creation of additional hardstanding. This therefore forms part of my assessment of this appeal.

The main issue of this appeal is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host property and the Lakes Estate Conservation Area (LECA).

The appeal property (44A) comprises a two-storey semi-detached dwelling, which I am told has been subdivided into flats and is located within the LECA. [address] comprises a tree-lined street containing closely spaced Edwardian semi-detached dwellings predominantly set back from the road by frontages of varying lengths. I saw there was a mix of designs to the frontages which included, amongst other things, planted front gardens. Some properties on the same side as 44A had driveways and hard standings which were mainly wide enough for one modern car and a pathway while retaining areas of planting or soft landscaping. Some also had front boundaries separating the front area from the pavement while others, predominantly on the opposite side to No 44A, had no driveways.

From the evidence before me and observations on site, the significance of this part of the LECA is derived from the architectural detailing of the housing and modest front gardens with planting, which have created a strong sense of visual continuity.

Photographs of the property prior to the works show that the driveway was open to the street and comprised a solid surface, a matter not disputed by the Council. They also showed hedging between the appeal premises and its two nearest neighbours and a ‘crazy paving’ path set at an angle leading towards the front door.

I saw that the hedging between the appeal site and No 42 has since been removed, and the area between the ‘crazy paving’ path and the planting bed of No 42 has been concreted. Concrete now covers the majority of the drive. The appellant’s Proposed Garden Plan also shows that there would be a painted line dividing the parking spaces and clearly marking two defined spaces. One for each tenant.

I acknowledge that the hedging was not subject to any Tree Protection Order and that the appellant was able to remove it. Whilst the [name] (2015) recognises that many of the front gardens have now been paved for parking, it does recognise that the pattern of front gardens, with decorative boundary walls and traditional planting, makes a positive contribution to the LECA.

Policy DMD 44 of Enfield Development Management Document, 2014 (DMD), relates to conserving and enhancing heritage assets. Policy DMD 37 of the DMD relates to design and seeks to ensure that development is appropriate with regard to its surroundings and context, and supporting text sets out that in all cases development should respect and complement the distinguishing positive characteristics of an area.

There is no dispute that the front garden of the appeal premises had been partially paved prior to the designation of the LECA, or that a driveway existed, which is evident by the presence of the dropped kerb. However, the Council contend that the pre-existing arrangement, even with the front boundary wall having been removed, retained legible elements of the original layout, including a defined pathway and areas of planting.

[name] did see a number of properties which had driveways similar to the appeal premises, I am mindful that the Council contend that many of these were installed prior to the designation of the CA. I have not been provided with any evidence to demonstrate that any of these driveways have planning permission granted after this date. I therefore cannot be certain that the circumstances surrounding these are comparable to the appeal before me. Furthermore, the [name] recognises that new areas of hardstanding are one of the main threats to the character of the area.

The appellant has drawn my attention to a number of other properties 1. These examples, however, have no street names or door numbers, unlike the following examples2. I therefore cannot be certain that the circumstances pertaining to these 1 Pages 24-34 2 Pages 35-41 properties are comparable to the appeal before me, which I have assessed on its own merits.

There is no dispute that the character of the LECA has changed over time; however, from my observations, the majority of driveways are only wide enough to accommodate approximately one modern car.

I recognise that the use of the same material is a continuity of an existing material; however, the use of a non-traditional material across the majority of the drive visually extends the width of the driveway beyond the width of the property. Furthermore, the addition of painted parking bay line would introduce a harsh and discordant feature more typical of larger residential schemes or commercial developments than a domestic frontage within a conservation area. The widening of the driveway and the painted parking bay line would therefore appear visually intrusive and incongruous within the traditional streetscape. Resulting in a further erosion of the historic pattern displayed to the front of the properties on [address]. Consequently, it would appear uncharacteristic in its immediate context and would not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the LECA.

I accept that the changes would be localised in terms of the LECA as a whole, and the harm to its significance would be less than substantial, however, paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) advises that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance. Paragraph 213 further advises that any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset (from its alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting) should require clear and convincing justification. Paragraph 215 requires that this harm be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

I acknowledge that the proposal would provide the occupants of both flats with a designated off-street parking space, which is both functional for the occupants and enables the terms of the leasehold to be fulfilled. However, from the evidence before me, the benefits would be largely private, and I have not been made aware of any public benefits arising from the proposal that would outweigh the harm I have identified.

Consequently, there would not be clear and convincing justification for harm to, or loss of significance of, the designated heritage asset as required by paragraph 213 of the Framework, nor would the great weight that should be given to the heritage asset’s conservation be outweighed.

In the absence of public benefit, I conclude that the widening of the existing driveway would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the host property and the LECA. Consequently, the proposed development would conflict with Policies D3 and HC1 of the London Plan (2021), Policies CP30 and CP31 of the Enfield Plan Core Strategy 2010 -2025 and Policies DMD37, DMD44 and DMD46 of the DMD, insofar as they seek to ensure that development conserves and enhances heritage assets and is appropriate to its surroundings and context. The proposal would also be contrary to the provisions of the Framework in relation to heritage assets.

The absence of harm to the highway alignment and throughfare are neutral matters in the overall planning balance, as this would be a likely requirement of a well-designed development.

Moreover, while I acknowledge that the appellant did not intend to undertake works that required planning permission, this matter does not outweigh the harm that I have identified above.

For the reasons given above, I find that the proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole, and material considerations do not indicate the decision should be made other than in accordance with it.

I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.