Appeal 6006682

The appeal is dismissed.

The application form states that the development has begun. However, the development as built diverges from the plans before me, most notably as there is no central planting area to the rear of the building. For clarity, I have assessed the appeal against the submitted plans and evidence, rather than what has been constructed to date.

As the site is within a conservation area, I am mindful of my statutory duty under section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (‘the Act’), to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to the adequacy of tree provision and whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the [address] Conservation Area (‘WGCA’).

This part of [address] is a long, broadly straight residential road. The appeal site is typical of the development which the Council’s WGCA Area Appraisal (2025) describes within the [address] Character Area. It is occupied by a large-scale semi-detached building of 3 storeys plus basement that forms part of a group of buildings in regular spaced plots, with a broadly consistent set-back from the kerb. Its frontage to the street is partly open, with a brick boundary wall.

The Appraisal describes the WGCA overall as a well-preserved late Victorian and Edwardian suburban area, representing an important stage in the development of Wanstead from a country village to a middle-class London suburb. Having regard to the Appraisal, I find that, insofar as it relates to this appeal, the significance of this designated heritage asset derives from the sense of spaciousness engendered by landscaping in gardens to blocks of flats and the trees found within front and rear gardens, which help to frame the wide road and to soften built form.

Front gardens of the [name] have largely been converted into driveways with hardstanding, a fact that is specifically noted in the Appraisal, and as is now the case at the appeal site. The open spaces around the appeal building have been almost entirely given over to recently installed hard landscaping, with areas of soft landscaping along parts of the perimeter.

Prior to that hard landscaping being carried out, the front yard contained 2 tall, mature trees in close proximity to the front boundary wall ([name] and C), a line of hedging closer to the building within the frontage and 1 mature tree within the rear garden (Tree A). The Council consented to the felling of what it refers to as Tree C. However, it had not consented to or been notified of the felling of the 2 other trees. The appellant does not seek to dispute this. The front yard otherwise appears to have previously been given over to informal, mixed hard landscape surfaces, while the rear garden had previously been composed of unmanaged vegetation and bare ground.

Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) on Tree Preservation Orders and Trees in Conservation Areas sets out that if a tree in a conservation area is removed, uprooted or destroyed in contravention of section 211 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the landowner has a duty to plant another tree as soon as they can reasonably do so1. It goes on to state that replacement trees should be of an appropriate size and species and planted at the same place. Whilst 2 of the trees that formerly stood on the site have been felled (without consent being obtained) and so are clearly not ‘existing’, there remains a duty for them to be adequately replaced. Therefore, I must take this into account when assessing the appeal.

The proposal makes no provision for trees in the positions of those 2 felled trees. The absence of provision for comparably mature trees would result in the site having an unduly stark appearance in the streetscene and would fail to contribute to the softening of the surrounding built environment, including in views from within the appeal site and from surrounding rear gardens. This would harm the significance of the WGCA, which carries considerable importance and weight.

Moreover, it has not been demonstrated that the proposal could accommodate planting of replacement trees of an appropriate size and species in the same locations as the felled trees. The application form refers to 6 car parking spaces proposed on the site, but no details of those are provided on the plans. It is unclear whether there would be potential for conflict between the positions of those spaces and any replacement trees, including through the risk of collision or indirect impacts on root health. Consequently, I cannot be satisfied that the proposal would not prejudice the replacement planting that is required to take place by threatening the long-term wellbeing of those trees. 1 Paragraph: 121 [name]: 36-121-20140306

I am not convinced that imposing a condition that requires the approval and implementation of a scheme of tree planting, as suggested by the appellant, would meet the tests for planning conditions set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework). I am particularly concerned as to whether such a condition could reasonably be complied with, given the absence of evidence to demonstrate that the long-term wellbeing of such trees would not be threatened by the appeal development. Accordingly, imposing such a condition would not overcome the harm to the WGCA.

The proportion of hard landscaping within the yard area to the front of the building would not be discordant with the surrounding streetscene, where hard landscaped driveways are common. Whilst this would not respond to the 50:50 ratio of soft landscaping sought in the Council’s Housing Design SPD, that guidance appears to relate to sites involving a single dwelling, rather than a building with multiple flats, as is the case here. The appeal site’s front yard would reasonably be more intensively used, for access and for parking several vehicles, compared to a single dwelling. In this context, there is inadequate justification for strictly applying the SPD guidance.

The proposal would introduce a large central planting area to the rear of the building. There are very limited details of the planting that would take place there, or in other areas of the site indicated to be given over to soft landscaping around parts of the site’s perimeter. However, a suitable scheme could undoubtedly be formulated so that the rear of the site contributes to the landscaping found in gardens along [address]. The Council suggests that a condition securing a scheme along these lines should be imposed if the appeal succeeds, and I would have been minded to do so in such circumstances. Subject to such a condition, this aspect of the proposal would preserve the significance of the WGCA.

For the reasons set out, however, the development neither preserves nor enhances the character or appearance of the WGCA. As the scheme is relatively small scale, this amounts to less than substantial harm in the terms of the Framework. This would be within the lower range of that spectrum of harm, to which Framework paragraph 212 requires great weight be given.

The Framework states that less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset should be weighed against the public benefits of a development proposal. The appellant has undertaken some other improvements to the property including the erection of a boundary wall, however those are unrelated to the appeal scheme as they are not shown on the plans before me and would not be secured by allowing the appeal scheme.

The appellant contends that the proposal would ensure the external areas around the building meet the functional needs of its occupiers, remain accessible to residents, are safe and can be maintained. Additionally, the proposal would allow for planting in the areas reserved for soft landscaping, with benefits for the site’s enjoyment value for its occupiers, as well as biodiversity and habitat value. Whilst very limited details of that planting are provided, full details could be secured by way of a planning condition. Nevertheless, the benefit of such soft landscaping, in the absence of tree planting to replace the felled trees, would not be sufficient to mitigate the harm caused by the proposal. Moreover, I am not satisfied that similar benefits could not be secured by an alternative or less harmful scheme.

There is no indication within the evidence before me that the appeal building has been identified by the Council as requiring enhancement. Accordingly, I give little weight to this and have assessed the proposal on the individual circumstances and evidence before me. Consequently, there is no clear and convincing justification for the harm I have identified and nor is it outweighed by any identified public benefits.

Thus, the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to the adequacy of tree provision. It would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the WGCA, resulting in harm to this designated heritage asset and conflict with the requirements of s72(1) of the Act. The proposal would also be contrary to Policies LP26, LP33, LP38 and LP39 of the Redbridge Local Plan 2015-2030 (2018) and Policies HC1 and G7 of The London Plan (2021). Collectively, those policies resist development that fails to preserve or enhance the character of designated heritage assets and seek to increase the quantity and quality of the borough’s biodiversity, maintain tree coverage and require development of a high landscape design quality. There would also be conflict with the heritage provisions of the Framework.

There is no dispute between the main parties that the materials used in the proposal are sufficiently permeable to avoid a significant increase in the risk of surface water flooding at the site. However, the absence of harm in this regard does not amount to a benefit of the proposal. This factor would weigh neither for nor against the appeal.

The Framework promotes a positive and proactive approach to decision-making and requires that planning authorities work with applicants to secure acceptable solutions. Whilst the appellant considers that the Council has not acted in accordance with this approach, this does not directly bear on my decision and has not led me to an alternative conclusion on the main issues.

For the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan. Material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.