Detached single garage at the front of the property, and the widening of the existing driveway following the partial demolition of the existing stone front boundary wall

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 6 July 2020 by Ben Phillips Bsc Msc Decision by R C Kirby BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI An Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 15 July 2020 Appeal Ref: APP/D0121/D/20/3247845 26 Montpelier, Weston-Super-Mare BS23 2RH • 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 and Mrs E Marshall against the decision of North Somerset Council. • The application Ref 19/P/2526/FUH, dated 9 October 2019, was refused by notice dated 5 December 2019. • The development proposed is described as the erection of a detached single garage at the front of the property, and the widening of the existing driveway following the partial demolition of the existing stone front boundary wall. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by an Appeal Planning Officer whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Main Issues 3. The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area including the Great Weston Conservation Area (CA). Reasons for Recommendation 4. Montpelier is a lengthy, pleasant residential street, made up mostly of large detached traditional Victorian dwellings with some of the more substantial properties converted to flats. The appeal property is a more modern post war dwelling, set back from the highway behind short stone walls as is characteristic of the street, with parking and a garden area to the front. This set back gives the street a spacious character. The topography of the street also means the appeal property and its neighbours are set above the road level. 5. The site is located within the Great Weston CA. Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that special attention is paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas. 6. The wider CA is characterised by stone built Victorian villas and houses generally set back from the road behind stone boundary walls with historic Appeal Decision APP/D0121/D/20/3247845 2 features and detailing, and high-quality landscaping apparent. The Hillside Character Area Appraisal and Management Plan (2018) identifies the loss of front gardens to car parking and the loss of the characteristic stone front boundary wall as a negative feature within this area. 7. I saw from my site visit that the proposed garage would, whilst set into the sloping frontage of the site and on a slight bend in the road, be sited incongruously and prominently forward of the building line. This would diminish the existing spacious character of the street. The additional loss of approximately 4 metres of the stone boundary wall, whilst not original, would further erode the high-quality features characteristic of the road. 8. As a consequence, the proposal would cause harm to the appearance of the street scene. The contribution that the appeal site makes to the character and appearance of the CA would be diminished as a result. Given these matters I find that the proposal would neither preserve nor enhance the character or appearance of the CA. It would have a harmful effect upon the significance of the CA as a designated heritage asset. Whilst it is acknowledged that the garage would be constructed of materials appropriate to the setting and that the development has attracted letters of support, this does not outweigh the harm that has been identified. 9. In reaching this view I am mindful that there are garages close to the edge of the road nearby at Nos 22 and 24 Montpelier. The dwellings that these garages serve are similar to the appeal property, and they have resulted in prominent features in the street scene which clearly detract from its attractive character and appearance. Such unsatisfactory developments do not provide justification for the proposal before me and the further harm to the street scene that would occur as a result of it. 10. The appellants also point to development approved at Nos 291 and 282, which included the removal of a section of the boundary wall. These sections to be removed appear smaller than that proposed for the appeal site and were not required in conjunction with a new garage. As such the proposal is not directly comparable. 11. Given the scale of the proposal, its impact would be localised. Accordingly, I find that the harm that would be caused to the significance of the CA as a designated heritage asset would be less than substantial. Paragraph 196 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) makes it clear that in such circumstances, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the development. 12. The benefits advanced in support of the proposal are largely personal including improved pedestrian access to the property, additional storage and parking. Although the additional parking proposed may reduce the demand for on street parking spaces, I have no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that on street parking in the area has reached saturation point or results in harm to highway safety and accordingly this benefit attracts moderate weight in my overall consideration of the proposal. 13. In light of the foregoing I conclude that the benefits of the scheme do not individually or cumulatively amount to public benefits which outweigh the harm 1 Approval reference 17/P/5195/FUH 2 Approval reference 19/P/2840/FUH Appeal Decision APP/D0121/D/20/3247845 3 identified to the significance of the CA as a designated heritage asset, to which I attach great weight as required by paragraph 193 of the Framework. 14. I therefore conclude that the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area and the significance of the Great Weston CA as a heritage asset. It would not improve the character and quality of the area. The proposal conflicts with Policy CS5 of the North Somerset Council Core Strategy and Policy DM3 of the North Somerset Council Development Management Policies Sites and Policies Plan Part 1 which collectively require development to be of a high standard of design, respect the characteristics of the site, and preserve or enhance the character and appearance of a CA. 15. There would also be conflict with the guidance set out in the Supplementary Planning Document ‘Residential Design Guide – Section 2 Appearance and character of house extensions and alterations’ (adopted 2014), which requires outbuildings to not break building lines nor dominate the street scene. There is also conflict with the Framework, which amongst other matters requires development to be sympathetic to local character and sustain and enhance the significance of heritage assets. Conclusion 16. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. B Phillips APPEALS PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 17. I have considered all the submitted evidence and the Appeal Planning Officer’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. R C Kirby INSPECTOR