Construction of vehicle access

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 1 December 2025 by C Cooper-Young MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 9 January 2026 Appeal Ref: 6000759 27 Bloomfield Avenue, Oldfield Park, Bath BA2 3AB • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Royce Menezes against the decision of Bath and North East Somerset Council. • The application Ref 25/00934/FUL, dated 11 March 2025, was refused by notice dated 23 July 2025. • The development proposed is construction of vehicle access. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary matters 2. The description of development above is taken from the Bath and North East Somerset Council’s decision notice, which describes the proposal more succinctly than that described on the original application form. 3. Supporting information has been provided with the submission which outlines that customers of the business located at the dwelling may have disabilities. 4. In determining this appeal, I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) contained in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, which sets out the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation, and to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it. Disability is a relevant protected characteristic to which the PSED applies. Main issue 5. The main issue is whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Bath Conservation Area (CA). Reasons 6. The appeal site lies within the Bath CA. The statutory requirement1 demands that special attention be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area. 7. The CA covers much of the City of Bath and so results in a broad and varied character. The significance of the CA is its historic and attractive buildings, the wider urban fabric, street layouts, and public realm. Bath’s Georgian cityscape, including crescents, terraces, and public spaces exemplify 18th-century planning 1 Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Appeal Decision 6000759 2 ideals. The area immediately around the appeal site is characterised by predominantly semi-detached dwellings of varying appearance and front boundary treatment. 8. The appeal site is a semi-detached two-storey dwelling, with a modest frontage and pilastered pedestrian access gate with a low front boundary which extends along the frontage and round to the side of the dwelling. This pattern is largely mirrored in the frontage of the adjoining property, reinforcing the historic setting of the two buildings, the coherence of their frontages, and the established character of the street scene 9. The Council’s officer delegated report highlights that the 2020 draft character appraisal for the Bear Flat and Oldfield Park Character Area, which lies within the Bath CA, identifies that the widespread presence of strong boundary walls enclosing properties, underscores their particular importance as a defining and valuable feature of the area’s historic character. I was able to observe many examples of these features in the area during my site inspection. 10. The proposed removal of a substantial section of the existing boundary wall would significantly erode an important element of the established character of the conservation area. Boundary walls within this locality are integral to the historic streetscape. They provide a sense of enclosure, continuity, and visual harmony that reflects the area’s architectural heritage. 11. The loss of such a prominent feature would disrupt the balanced relationship between the host dwelling and adjoining property, creating a visual imbalance and weakening the cohesive aesthetic that helps define this aspect of the conservation area. This alteration would, therefore, diminish the area’s overall integrity and harm its distinctive character. 12. As such, I find that the proposed alteration of the front boundary wall through the removal of a section of it to form a vehicular access would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Bath CA and result in less than substantial harm to the heritage asset. 13. Paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) outlines that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. 14. There would be very limited public benefits arising from any construction jobs during the construction phase given the small scale nature of the development. 15. The appellant refers to the development providing off street parking for patients of the clinic which operates from 27 Bloomfield Avenue. He states that some of those people have disabilities. The development would allow clients to park on the site which would be an improvement in accessibility for clients with impaired mobility. Given the extent of the evidence, I attach moderate weight to this matter. 16. Set against the great weight to be attached to the harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset in this case, I do not find that the harm is outweighed by the public benefits in this case. 17. Furthermore, for the reasons set out above, the harm caused by the appeal development outweighs its benefits in terms of eliminating discrimination against Appeal Decision 6000759 3 persons with the protected characteristic of disability, advancing equality of opportunity for those persons and fostering good relations between them and others. Consequently, I conclude that it is proportionate and necessary to dismiss this appeal. 18. Accordingly, I conclude that proposed development fails to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Bath CA resulting in less than substantial harm to the significance of the CA, which is not outweighed by public benefits. As such the proposal is contrary to Policy HE1 of the Bath and North East Somerset Placemaking Plan 2017, which amongst other things, requires development to enhance or better reveal the significance and setting of the CA, and make a positive contribution to its character and appearance. Conclusion 19. For the reasons given above, having had regard to the development plan as a whole and all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. C Cooper-Young INSPECTOR