For the formation of vehicle crossover and hardstanding in front garden; demolition of front boundary wall and railings and erection of replacement front dwarf boundary walls and piers

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 December 2018 by Mr C J Tivey BSc (Hons) BPl MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 4th February 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/H5960/D/18/3214266 49 Elsynge Road, London, SW18 2HR  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 Mark Davis against the decision of the London Borough of Wandsworth Council.  The application Ref 2018/3138, dated 18 April 2018, was refused by notice dated 17 August 2018.  The development proposed is for the formation of vehicle crossover and hardstanding in front garden; demolition of front boundary wall and railings and erection of replacement front dwarf boundary walls and piers. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a formation of vehicle crossover and hardstanding in front garden; demolition of front boundary wall and railings and erection of replacement front dwarf boundary walls and piers at 49 Elsynge Road, London, SW18 2HR in accordance with terms of the application Ref. 2018/3138, dated 18 April 2018, subject to the following conditions: 1. The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 828/50, 828/51A, 828/52A, 828/53A and 828/54A. 3. Prior to commencement of construction above ground level, details of the height, design and materials of the proposed boundary treatments and the surfacing materials of the driveway shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details. Main Issue 2. The main issue is whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Wandsworth Common Conservation Area. Reasons 3. The appeal site is situated within a residential street where dwellings are well conserved, but where front boundary treatments exist they vary considerably in terms of materials and design and indeed few appear to be of original construction. In quite a number of cases dwellings have frontage parking and either have a pared back/front boundary treatment or none at all. Appeal Decision APP/H5960/D/18/3214266 2 4. 49 Elsynge Road’s front boundary wall and railings are of relatively modern construction and enclose a paved area with no soft landscaping behind; at the time of my site visit it was being used for the parking of a moped. I accept that the front boundary does provide a sense of enclosure to the front of the house although the proposal would give rise to some form of boundary treatment being retained, albeit, rebuilt and of a different design. 5. Taking into account the fact that there is no clearly discernible theme within the street scene in respect of boundary treatments, and that the front garden area is already paved I consider that parking a car in the front garden would not be unduly unsightly. At the very least the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area. 6. I note that the Council’s Housing Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) states that front gardens less than 7m wide and 8m deep are unlikely to accommodate a car without harming the setting of the house, however in this particular case I consider that this policy conflict would not be so substantial as to warrant withholding the grant of planning permission. I also find that the proposal does not conflict with Policy IS3 of the Wandsworth Local Plan Core Strategy (2016) or Policies DMS1 and DMS2 of the Wandsworth Local Plan Development Management Policies Document (2016) which require proposals to protect the existing varied character and heritage of the Borough whilst ensuring that proposals are sympathetic to local landscape characteristics and seek to conserve the significance of designated heritage assets. Other Matters 7. I noted on my site visit that parking within the street is at a premium and sympathise with the third party concerns with regard to the loss of parking spaces within the street. However in response to this issue, I note that the Council’s officer report highlights that the proposed development is located within an area with excellent public transport accessibility and is within walking distance of Clapham Junction station. The Council’s report also stipulates that the proposal meets the recommended standards as set out in the SPD in respect of driveway dimensions and highlights that there is no objection to the proposal on transport grounds. I therefore find that there are no substantive grounds before me to refuse the proposal on such matters. Conclusion and Conditions 8. For the reasons set out above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should succeed. 9. Other than the standard time limit condition, the Council has suggested the imposition of conditions that require details of the proposed boundary treatments, as well as the materials to be employed within the proposal, to be submitted to them for prior approval. I consider it is not necessary to impose a pre- commencement condition, as preparatory work, including the demolition of the front boundary wall could be carried out on implementation of planning permission, but in the interests of preserving the character and appearance of the conservation area I consider that the imposition of an amalgamated condition is necessary. Furthermore for the avoidance of doubt a condition requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans is also imposed. C J Tivey INSPECTOR