Appeal 6006962

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council’s Officer Report refers to approving the application. However, in its context this is clearly a typing error. I have considered the appeal on the basis that it was refused for the reasons set out in the Notice of Decision

On site I observed that the appeal development is in situ.

The main issue is whether the appeal development preserves or enhances the character and appearance of the Little Aston Conservation Area (CA).

The appeal site is within the CA. I am therefore mindful of the statutory duty set out in Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (LBCA) that requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of a Conservation Area.

The special significance of the CA lies, at least partially, in its large, detached dwellings within spacious plots, strong established landscaping and entrance gates that convey a sense of private parkland.

The appeal property is a substantial detached dwelling set back from the road, surrounded by mature trees and planting. The vehicular entrance is at the corner of Little Aston Park Road and [address]. The appeal development comprises tall, black, metal, ornate entrance gates set back slightly from the highway within the vehicular entrance to the appeal property. There is established landscaping either side but the gates are in a prominent position at the corner and they can be clearly seen from vantage points along both roads.

On site, I observed that there are varied architectural styles and boundary features within the local area. Gates are a common feature. Although there are differences in design, metal rail gates that allow views through to each dwelling are a predominant characteristic within the surrounding area. The details provided indicate a previous gate at the appeal property was markedly lower than the appeal development and it was simpler in appearance.

In contrast, the appeal development introduces metal gates with an embellished design that means views through the gates are significantly obstructed. Also, the maximum height of the gates exceeds that of most others in the area. The arched design varies the height of the gates and established landscaping is present on either side. Even so, the lack of views through to the dwelling and height of the gates at the prominent corner position mean that they appear overly dominant in the street scene.

For these reasons, I conclude the appeal development does not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the CA and so it causes harm to its significance. It thus conflicts with Policies CP3, CP14 and BE1 of the Lichfield District Council Local Plan Strategy (2015), which seek to ensure the significance of designated heritage assets are conserved.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) differentiates between substantial and less than substantial harm to heritage assets. In this case, I find the harm caused to the significance of the CA to be at the lower end of the scale of less than substantial. In such circumstances, paragraph 215 of the Framework requires the harm to be weighed against any public benefits of the development. In accordance with paragraph 212 of the Framework, great weight is given to the asset’s conservation. Even if the appeal development increases security at the appeal property, any associated public benefit pertaining to a greater sense of public safety in the area is very small. As such, I find no clear or convincing justification for the identified harm to the CA.

The development conflicts with the development plan when read as a whole. Therefore, for the reasons given, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.