Partial demolition of existing front boundary wall and creation of an off-street car parking space in front garden (resubmission of planning application 16/06819/H)

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 28 November 2017 by J E Tempest BA(Hons) MA PGDip PGCertHE MRTPI IHBC an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 21 December 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/Z0116/D/17/3182597 2 Redland Green Road, Redland, Bristol BS6 7HE  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr & Mrs Hodgson against the decision of Bristol City Council.  The application Ref 17/03505/H, dated 20 June 2017, was refused by notice dated 18 August 2017.  The development proposed is partial demolition of existing front boundary wall and creation of an off-street car parking space in front garden (resubmission of planning application 16/06819/H). Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to the site’s location within the Cotham and Redland Conservation Area. Reasons 3. The appeal site is a substantial semi-detached property on the south side of Redland Green Road, close to the junction with Redland Court Road. Described by the appellants as an Edwardian property, the front elevation is predominantly two storeys but with a gable serving a third storey. The Council’s Cotham & Redland Character Appraisal & Management Proposals (CA) was adopted by the Council in September 2011. Whilst not part of the development plan, the CA sets out the character of the conservation area as a whole and various character areas within it. The conservation area overall is described as a leafy suburb characterised by its individually developed urban streets, dominated by a high quality Victorian townscape complemented by a spacious and verdant character. The site is within the West Redland Character Area. 4. The property is within a row of six similar pairs of semi-detached houses. These are large and imposing properties with first floor recessed balconies, ground and first floor canted bay windows, prominent front gables and a number of other architectural features. The appeal property has been modified to enclose the recessed balcony and includes brick rather than stone panels on the front elevation. The CA identifies the row at 1 – 12 Redland Green Road as a collective group of unlisted buildings of merit within the conservation area. From what I observed during my site visit, the row occupies a prominent Appeal Decision APP/Z0116/D/17/3182597 2 location following the curve of the junction of Redland Green Road with Redland Court Road and leading towards Redland Parish Church and Redland Green. There is a grassed and relatively open area on the opposite side of the road, partly lined with large street trees, which adds to the contrasting role played in the street scene by the group of houses. 5. All of the houses in the group of twelve retain their front gardens and have only pedestrian access from the footpath. Notwithstanding the lack of railings above the walls in some places, the boundary walls and gate piers contribute to the character of the houses and the local area. As well as providing a clear definition between the public street and private gardens, the boundary wall materials incorporate different types of stone reflecting those used on the houses. Due to the slope of the ground, the extent to which the gardens are raised above the level of the public footway varies across the row. These properties as a group make an important contribution to the significance of the conservation area, and play a positive role in the character and appearance of the area. 6. The proposal to remove part of the front boundary wall and relocate and alter the existing gate piers would introduce a 2.4 metre wide gateway and close the existing pedestrian gateway which is 1.05 metres wide. The Council’s Planning Advice Note 6 (PAN6) provides supplementary guidance and as such does not carry the weight of development plan policy. Nonetheless, the guidance is a consideration in this decision as it is specific to off-street residential parking in conservation areas and sets out a number of details to be incorporated into front garden parking, including maintaining a means of enclosure, re-using gate piers, and a minimum width of opening not exceeding one third of the total frontage. 7. I acknowledge that the design of the proposal follows the guidance in PAN 6. However, this guidance relates to all of the City’s conservation areas. It therefore does not necessarily follow that employing its design guidance will maintain or enhance the character and appearance of a conservation area in all situations. 8. The loss of gardens and front boundary treatments to off-street parking provision and the development or overlaying of gardens resulting in loss of trees is noted as a threat to the character of the West Redland area in the Council’s CA appraisal. Whilst there would be no loss of significant trees as a result of the proposals, the front garden, although not particularly deep, provides the setting to the house. The front boundary acts as a retaining wall as at this point in the row, the footpath is lower than the front gardens. 9. Although the appellants point to the proposal leaving over 70% of the front garden as soft landscaping, the proposals would open up of the frontage of the property and the parking space would be visible from public views. The creation of the vehicular access, the necessary excavation of the ground to provide a level parking area, and the overall proximity of the parking space to the front elevation of the house would all contribute to the harm which the proposals would cause to the character and appearance of the conservation area, including the group of properties of which the appeal site forms part. 10. I noted during my site visit that parking in the area generally is controlled by residents parking permits or paid meter parking. I acknowledge that there are double yellow lines outside the appeal property precluding parking immediately Appeal Decision APP/Z0116/D/17/3182597 3 outside the property. However the available evidence, borne out by what I observed, does not indicate a general lack of available parking spaces in the surrounding area. Consequently, whilst the proposal would not result in any loss of on-street parking, it would not result in any significant public benefits. Other matters 11. The appellants point out that an Article 4 Direction is in place for the area which brings the creation of hard surfaced areas within a domestic curtilage, and the removal of boundary walls under the Council’s control. The Council report on the proposal acknowledges compliance PAN 6 in respect of the width of the proposed opening. 12. I have taken into account that properties facing towards the appeal site on Redland Court Road include off-road parking. However, these are of a different date and style from the appeal property and are not within the coherent group of which the appeal property forms part. I also noted during my site visit the the fencing, screening and metal garage doors on the south east side of Redland Court Road but their presence does not alter my conclusions with regard to the appeal proposal. Conclusions 13. I find that the proposal would fail to maintain, and therefore would not enhance, either the character or appearance of the conservation area. 14. When considered in the context of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) the harm to the significance of the conservation area, a designated heritage asset, would be less than substantial. The Framework requires great weight to be given to the conservation of heritage assets when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset. In this case, the proposed development would diminish the significance of the conservation area and the harm is not outweighed by any public benefits. Consequently, the proposal does not comply with the Framework. 15. For these reasons, the proposals would fail to satisfy Policy BCS 22 of the Bristol Core Strategy Adopted June 2011 (CS) which requires development to safeguard or enhance heritage assets including conservation areas. The proposal would also not meet the expectations of Policy DM 31 Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Local Plan Adopted July 2014 (DMP) that development within a conservation area should preserve or where appropriate enhance those elements which contribute to their special character or appearance. The proposal would therefore fail to satisfy Policy BCS 21 of the CS which requires development to contribute positively to the area’s character and identity. There would also be conflict with DMP Policy DM27 which requires development to respond appropriately to existing local pattern of development including, amongst other matters, the character of streets and with Policy DM26 which supports local character and distinctiveness 16. For the reasons given above and having taken into account all matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. J E Tempest INSPECTOR