Formation of parking space on garden land opposite

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 17 July 2018 by Philip Willmer BSc Dip Arch RIBA an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 3 August 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/M3835/D/18/3204040 Garden opposite, 7 Warwick Place, Worthing, West Sussex, BN11 3EU.  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 P Thornton against the decision of Worthing Borough Council.  The application Ref AWDM/0068/18, dated 15 January 2018, was refused by notice dated 13 March 2018.  The development proposed is the formation of parking space on garden land opposite. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the Steyne Gardens Conservation Area, the setting of the listed cottages in the terrace and the wider street scene. Reasons 3. The appeal site is a garden plot located on the west side of Warwick Place. Warwick Place is a no through road serving a terrace of two and three-storey 19th century cottages, the majority of which I understand are listed grade II, including number 7. Warwick Place is within the Steyne Gardens Conservation Area and is covered by an article 4 Direction. As I saw parking restrictions deter on-street parking. 4. The original development was laid out such that the cottages enjoy additional detached private garden areas on the opposite side of the access road to the cottages. A number of these small gardens are now utilised for parking, with some also having garages or carports. 5. The garden space in front of number 7 is currently laid out as a formal garden comprising both hard and soft landscaping behind a low rendered wall with a pedestrian gate set between pillars. The side and rear boundaries to the garden are high brick and cobblestone walls. 6. The gardens and enclosing boundary walls are recorded, in the Steyne Gardens Conservation Area Appraisal, as architectural and historic townscape elements, which should be preserved. It goes on to say that the reinstatement of enclosure of the detached front gardens where this has been lost would represent a specific enhancement opportunity. As I saw, where the gardens Appeal Decision APP/M3835/D/18/3204040 2 and boundary walls have been retained they serve to enhance both the setting of the listed buildings as well as the character and appearance of the conservation area. 7. The appellant proposes demolishing a wide section of the front wall to the street to form a vehicle crossover to give access to a new 2.7 x 5.0 metres parking bay formed of ‘Grasscrete’ paving. Box planting is proposed to the rear and the retained garden side of the parking bay. 8. The wall may not be original and the gate a modern intervention. Nevertheless, the proposal is in direct conflict with the objectives of the Steyne Gardens Conservation Area Appraisal in that the front wall would be substantially removed, the area of hard surfacing, albeit the open nature of grasscrete, would be increased and the loss of soft landscaping would result. The proposed development would thereby cause harm to the character of the conservation area and thereby the setting of the listed buildings. 9. The National Planning Policy Framework (July 2018) (the Framework) requires great weight to be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets, which include conservation areas and listed buildings. It draws a distinction between substantial harm and less than substantial harm to such an asset. In my judgement I consider that in this case the proposed development would not lead to substantial harm to or a total loss of significance of designated heritage assets. Accordingly, contrary to the Council’s assessment, I conclude that in this case there would be less than substantial harm. Accordingly the harm should be weighed against public benefits, including securing the optimum viable use. 10. The proposed development would provide some limited economic benefit and would provide off road parking, thereby possibly freeing up a public parking space, albeit only one in a location where parking is at a premium. However, given the harm that has been identified I conclude that the public benefits would not outweigh this harm, or the conflict that it would have with the objectives of Sections 66 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the Framework and saved Policy H16 of the Worthing Local Plan (Adopted September 2003) and Policy 16 of the Worthing Core Strategy (Adopted April 2011) as they relate to the quality of development, the setting of listed buildings, and the preservation or enhancement of the character or appearance of conservation areas. Conclusions 11. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, including the identified benefits to the appellant of a parking space here, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Philip Willmer INSPECTOR