Appeal 6008093

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Whiteladies Conservation Area.

The site is situated within a street of well conserved stone villas of the Bristol vernacular with front gardens, many of which are contained by low front stone walls with stone piers and wrought iron pedestrian gates which contribute to the significance of the designated heritage asset. Quite a number of houses within the street now have off-street parking, in some cases with single width driveways and in other cases covering the full width of the respective plot, and are generally paved.

However, I consider that notwithstanding this trend, that the incremental loss of front boundary walls has given rise to an erosion of character of the street scene and the [address] [name] within its General Enhancement Objectives states that the loss of attractive front gardens and trees to hardstanding for cars will be resisted.

I acknowledge that the proposal before me would give rise to the loss of a narrower section of boundary wall than was previously proposed, and that the appellant, in part, wishes to create this space so that: a) they would be able to park immediately outside their house so that they could reach their car quickly when on-call at work; and b) so that they could install an electric vehicle charging point. [name] am conscious of the push to increase the use of EVs within the country, this must be balanced against the heritage impacts of the proposal. Furthermore, whilst I note it has not been raised as an issue by the local highway authority, inevitably the creation of an additional driveway access would further reduce on-street parking to the disbenefit of other residents.

I accept that the existing front garden area is not presently particularly well maintained however, the stone driveway would be a permanent feature and combined with the loss of the boundary wall, I consider the proposal to be a retrograde step in heritage terms, particularly bearing in mind that the occupation of dwellings is generally transitory, therefore personal circumstances rarely outweigh matters in the public interest. I note that there would be no trees removed as a result of the proposal and that the metal railings are not original features, which in reality could do with being replaced with those of a more historic design. However, that in itself is not a reason to permit the removal of an historic feature within a designated heritage asset. [name] note the concerns with regard to the allocation of a single parking space for a single family use not being unreasonable, and that refusal of such an application is a major disincentive for families to wish to live in the area, with a subsequent negative impact on the social balance, that claim has not been substantiated.

I conclude that the proposal would give rise to less than substantial harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset and that the public benefits of the proposal do not outweigh this harm. Consequently, I conclude that the scheme would fail to preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. I find the proposal conflicts with Policy BSC22 of the Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy, adopted June 2011 and Policies DM26 and DM31 of the Bristol Local Plan Site Allocations and Development Management Policies, adopted July 2014 which, amongst other things, set out general principles to contribute towards local character and distinctiveness by respecting, building upon or restoring the local pattern and grain of development, including the historical development of, and reflecting the boundary treatments in an area, whilst expecting development that has an impact upon a heritage asset to meet the statutory test and stipulating that development will not be permitted where it would be harmful to local character and distinctiveness.

Having regard to the above and all other matters raised by the parties, I conclude that the appeal be dismissed.