Appeal 6006102

The appeal is dismissed.

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 plans before me indicate other development that is not included in the original description on the application form. This includes elements referred to in the amended description on the Council’s decision notice which states ‘Retention of single‐storey side extension, part single‐storey and part two‐storey rear extensions, alterations to the front elevation including white cladding and replacement UPVC fenestration, new front boundary wall and gated entrance, extensive hardstanding to front and rear gardens, retention of front outbuilding for wheelchair storage, retention of rear outbuilding with canopy, raised rear patio with balustrading, relocated dropped kerb to the centre of the frontage, together with the proposed installation of two rain‐garden planters, two replacement trees within the front garden, and two cycle storage units adjacent to the south side elevation’.

Noting that the plans have been consulted on and the Council’s decision takes them into account, no party would be prejudiced by me also making my assessment on the basis of the Council’s more comprehensive description and the plans before me.

On my site visit, I observed that other than the indicated relocated dropped kerb, the development has been carried out. Therefore, I have considered the appeal on the basis that planning permission is sought retrospectively. However, I have removed the word retrospective from the description for the purposes of the appeal banner heading, as this is not an act of development.

The main issues are: • whether the development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the [address] Conservation Area, including but not limited to trees; • the effect of the development on highway safety; and • if there is any harm under the main issues, whether such harm is outweighed by the personal circumstances put forward by the appellant.

[address] Conservation Area (CA) derives its significance from its early C11 origins and its royal connections, such as the ‘[address]’, a rare timber framed royal hunting lodge. The C19 arrival of the railway transformed the area through better connections to London and heralded the arrival of tourism. This led to the rapid expansion and suburbanisation of Chingford, shown through surviving examples of Victorian and Edwardian villas. The material palette within the CA includes a prevalence of red or yellow/brown brick, hung tiles, half-timbered motifs and terracotta. [address] has a number of the CA’s characteristic semi-detached villas which include these materials and features.

[address] Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan (CAA) notes that the northern end of [address], where the appeal site is situated, contains several 20th century infill buildings. These buildings occupy larger plots than the historic plots to the south and often adopt a more set back building line. The CAA also identifies that the modern infill development adopts a larger scale and massing, creating a coarser grain of development that does not respond to the fine grain of the historic paired villas.

The evidence before me, including the pre-existing photograph in the Council’s delegated report, suggests that prior to the development subject to this appeal, the appeal dwelling reflected the 20th century infill typology but that the dwelling’s simple form, limited ornamentation and position set back from the street gave it an understated appearance. From what I have seen in terms of photographic evidence, the subdued tones of the dwelling’s facing materials, including those of its front wall, were also respectful of the vernacular of the CA. Consequently, prior to the development before me, the appeal site made a neutral contribution to the significance of the CA.

The multi-toned brick and grey concrete coping stones utilised for the new front wall significantly distinguish it from the more consistent and subdued tones of other front walls in the street, particularly the neighbouring high walls at Nos 2 and [address]. The prominence of white bricks within the wall also notably contrasts with the brickwork on the host dwelling. Similar bricks have also been used on the outbuilding to the front of the site, which given its siting next to the front boundary and height extending above the wall adds to the prominence of the uncharacteristic colour palette. Consequently, the materials used for the wall and this outbuilding detract from the cohesiveness of the CA’s street scene.

The scale of the front porch and ramp and the single storey side extension have a subservient appearance. Whilst the grey roof tiles contrast to the prevailing red or brown tones of the street’s roofscape, they are suitably dull in colour. The white cladding on the front dormer and front gable differs from the prevailing muted colour palette of the wider CA’s roofscape. Even so, in the context of the appeal dwelling and its position alongside the dwellings at Nos 2 and 4 which have similar cladding, it does not appear conspicuous in this particular instance.

Most of the additional bulk created by the extensions is concentrated at the rear of the host dwelling. This is primarily visible in private views from surrounding properties. There are a variety of building forms and styles in these views, including the large residential blocks to the immediate rear of the site on [address]. Furthermore, the staggered building line in relation to the immediate neighbours assists in accommodating the extension’s depth. The painted render used also suitably reflects the pale render seen on other dwellings across the wider CA. Consequently, the extensions acceptably assimilate with the surrounding built context.

The outbuilding to the rear of the dwelling has replaced an earlier structure. I acknowledge that the outbuilding has greater permanence and solidity than the previous pergola. It also incorporates similar brickwork to the front wall and ‘wheelchair storage’ outbuilding. However, given its more discreet location to the rear, its effects on the CA are less profound and it adequately integrates with the back garden setting.

With regards to the block paving to the front of the site, I observed that block paved forecourts are a common feature of properties in the vicinity of the appeal site. Even though I understand that some planting has been removed to facilitate the works, there is nothing to suggest that this was of high amenity value in the CA. Therefore, even accounting for the extent of hard surfacing, it acceptably relates to its immediate surroundings in the CA.

There are three substantial street trees on the footpath, close to and aligned with the front boundary of the appeal site. These trees are identified in the appellant’s ‘Arboricultural Survey Impact Assessment & [name] – October 2025’ (AIA) as T1, T2 and T3 as ‘Category ‘B’ trees. From my own observations, together with the other trees which line either side of the street, they provide a notable verdancy which positively contributes to the character and appearance of the CA.

The AIA is premised on the ‘rear extension / site footprint’ being outside of the root protection area (RPA) of the identified street trees. However, the plans at [name] of the AIA indicate that the root protection area of the trees extends over the front boundary of the appeal site. The AIA includes methodology for final landscape works which may have included the paved forecourt. However, there is no specific methodology to avoid damage to the root systems of the street trees detailed in respect of other works close to the site boundary and within the RPAs, namely the front boundary wall and the ‘wheelchair storage’ outbuilding.

The appellant contends that the wall was constructed directly upon the pre-existing foundations and that there was no new trenching or deep excavation at the boundary line. However, the new wall closes off a section which previously formed a vehicular entrance and the outbuilding is a new building where there was previously none.

Of particular pertinence is section 8 of the AIA which includes communication details for key individuals and tasks that require monitoring. Given the retrospective nature of the development, I would have expected verification from an arboriculturist that either monitoring was undertaken during the development works as per the AIA or, if not, that they are satisfied that there has been no harm to the trees. In the absence of such information, it has not been demonstrated that the development has not unduly impacted on the immediate or long term health of Trees T1, T2 and T3. This adds to my other concerns in respect of the effects of the development on the character and appearance of the CA.

Overall, the materials utilised within the front boundary wall and the ‘wheelchair storage’ outbuilding unacceptably contrast with the more subdued tones of materials prevalent in the CA and it has not been demonstrated that the development has not unduly impacted upon the health of trees in the CA.

Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 sets out that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas. Paragraph 212 of the Framework states that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, in this case the CA, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. For the above reasons, the development fails to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the CA. This harm would be at the lower end of less than substantial for the purposes of applying the Framework. In such circumstances, the Framework requires this harm to be weighed against any public benefits of the proposal, which I will return to later in my recommendation.

For the reasons specified, the development conflicts with Policies 53, 70, 72, 79 and 80 of the [site address] Local Plan Part 1 (2024) (LP) which require development to be of a high quality design, to reinforce and enhance local character and distinctiveness, to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA, to protect and enhance biodiversity and that development will not be supported where it gives rise to any threat, immediate or long term, to the continued well-being of trees of significant amenity. For these reasons also, the development is contrary to the provisions of the Framework relating to conserving and enhancing the historic and natural environment.

The Council’s reason for refusal relating to this matter also refers to Policy 91 of the LP. As confirmed in the Officer report, that particular policy relates to flood risk. In any case, that policy does not alter my conclusion against the relevant policies of the LP referred to above.

The appeal site is located on [address]. It is lit by street lights and has a speed limit of 20 miles per hour. There are also speed bumps intermittently along the road including near to the entrance of the appeal site and on my site visit I observed parked cars on either side of the highway.

The Council’s report has not provided any specific dimensions for visibility, instead referring to ‘2.4m”X?distance”’. They have, however, made reference to the Manual for Streets (MfS), which states that the Y distance required for a road with a 20mph speed limit such as this is 25m.

The visibility splay shown on the appellant’s drawing is within the pavement. The 2.4m measurement would usually be taken from the back edge of the pavement, extending into the site. Based on the visibility splay shown, vehicles would encroach onto the footway before drivers would have visibility of oncoming pedestrians and vehicular traffic. Nevertheless, MfS is clear that the guidance should be applied flexibly and that the absence of wide visibility splays at private driveways will encourage drivers to emerge more cautiously. Consideration should be given to whether this will be appropriate, taking into account the frequency of vehicle movements, the amount of pedestrian activity and the width of the footway.

From what I have seen, the site has historically been served by a high front boundary wall with vehicular entrance, as have the adjoining properties at Nos 2 and [address]. In the circumstances, there is nothing to suggest that the new wall has resulted in a significant material change in circumstances in terms of visibility at the site frontage. Even accounting for the street trees there is suitable refuge within the footway either side of the vehicular access point and pedestrians would also be alerted to the potential for emerging vehicles by the proposed dropped kerb.

Given the site-specific factors described, the development has an acceptable effect on highway safety. It therefore complies with Policy 61 of the LP requiring development to support a high quality and safe public realm.

The Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) contained in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, sets out the need to eliminate discrimination, harassment and victimisation, and to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it. I have also had regard to the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 and recognise that the dismissal of the appeal would interfere with some of the appellants’ rights under Article 8 of the [name]. Article 8(1) states that everyone has a right to respect for their private and family life, their home and their correspondence.

In these respects, I am aware that the appellant is a wheelchair user with significant ongoing needs. The appellant has indicated that the development provides internal and external space which facilitates ongoing care and ease of access into and out of the dwelling and the site. I have no reason to doubt that this is the case and that, in that respect, there are elements of the development which are beneficial to the appellant’s quality of life, such as the extended dwelling’s internal floor arrangement which affords wheelchair accessible space and care staff accommodation at ground floor as well as the outbuilding to the front for the storage of wheelchairs. This is a personal circumstance to which I afford substantial weight in favour of the appeal.

The Framework sets out that great weight should be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets irrespective of the level of harm. I have identified that the development has resulted in harm to the significance of the CA and that this is at the lower end of less than substantial harm. The Framework identifies that where less than substantial harm to a designated heritage asset is identified, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

I have found that there are personal circumstances of substantial weight. However, without evidence to demonstrate otherwise, it is unlikely that the front wall and ‘wheelchair storage’ outbuilding could not have been carried out in materials that would have preserved the character and appearance of the CA. Therefore, given the special attention that must be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area under the Act and having regard to the great weight I must apply to the conservation of the CA, the public benefits in this instance do not outweigh the harm to the CA. In these respects, the appeal is also not comparable to the other appeal decisions referred to by the appellant which did not relate to properties in a conservation area.

Therefore, in weighing the personal circumstances in the balance, this has to be considered against the unacceptable effect that the development has on the CA. For the reasons set out, a refusal of planning permission is a proportionate and necessary approach to preserve the significance of the CA. Furthermore, the protection of the public interest cannot be achieved by means that are less interfering of the specified family members human rights and the personal circumstances put forward do not outweigh the unacceptable effects of the proposal.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.