Alterations to boundary including relocation of existing vehicular access, formation of new driveway, erection of new gates and posts to front elevation with associated landscaping

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 March 2026 by Susan Ashworth BA (Hons) BPL MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 24 March 2026 Appeal Ref: 6003744 1 Bower Road, Hale, WA15 9DT • 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 & Mrs Loudon against the decision of Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council. • The application Ref is 117144/HHA/25. • The development proposed is alterations to boundary including relocation of existing vehicular access, formation of new driveway, erection of new gates and posts to front elevation with associated landscaping. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for alterations to boundary including relocation of existing vehicular access, formation of new driveway, erection of new gates and posts to front elevation with associated landscaping. at 1 Bower Road, Hale, WA15 9DT in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 117144/HHA/25, 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 drawings: • Existing and Proposed Boundary Elevations (SW398-202 Rev. E) • Existing and Proposed Section (SW398-203 Rev. E) • Existing Site Layout (SW398-200 Rev. C) • Proposed Site Layout (SW398-201 Rev. G) • Site Block Plan (SW398-101 Rev. C) • Site Location Plan (SW398-100 Rev. C) 3) No development or works of site preparation shall take place until all trees that are to be retained within or adjacent to the site have been enclosed with tree protection barriers as shown on the submitted Tree Protection Plan (ref. CW/11404 P TP). The barriers shall be retained throughout the period of construction and no activity prohibited by BS:5837:2012 'Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction' shall take place within such protective fencing during the construction period. All the recommendations stated on the Tree Protection Plan should be followed during the works. Appeal Decision 6003744 2 Main Issues 2. The site lies within the South Hale Conservation Area. Accordingly, I have had regard to the statutory duty set out in section 72 (1) of the Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act). 3. The main issue in this case is therefore whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the South Hale Conservation Area. Reasons 4. The South Hale Conservation Area Appraisal 2017 sets out that the special character of the area is derived from, amongst other things, the many fine individual residences built in the area which have a variety of architectural styles and date from various periods including Victorian and Edwardian; the use of brown or red brick with some partial render; the high level of architectural integrity and detail; the setting of the houses in gardens characterised by a variety of trees and shrubs and a low proportion of hardstanding; tree lined streets; boundary treatments consisting of low garden walls with hedges above and trees or hedgerows. 5. 1 Bower Road, which lies within Zone B of the conservation area, dates from the early 20th century and is constructed in red brick with half-timber detailing and features bay windows and tall chimneys. The site occupies a prominent position at the junction of Bower Road and Harrop Road. A pedestrian gateway provides access to the front elevation facing Bower Road, while a driveway from Harrop Road provides access to a detached garage and parking space at the rear of the property. Mature landscaping along the boundaries partly conceals the house from view. 6. As set out in the South Hale Conservation Area Management Plan the building makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area. The building and site reflect a number of the key characteristics of the areas set out above. 7. The proposal seeks to remove a section of wall on Bower Road as well as a Yew tree protected by a Tree Preservation Order1 (TPO), to form a vehicular access. The existing access to Harrop Road would be closed using the stone from the new entrance and the hardsurfaced driveway removed to create a larger garden area. A new area of hardsurfacing would be created to the front of the building to provide parking and manoeuvring space for three vehicles. 8. It is evident that the property has historically been served by a driveway to the rear of the site. Nevertheless, within the conservation area there are examples of corner properties where the driveway is to the front of the building. On that basis the position of the driveway relative to the dwelling is a neutral factor in terms of the character and appearance of the area. Along Bower Road, driveways are typically arranged in an off-centre front position, and in several instances, off-street parking is provided immediately in front of the front elevation. In that context the proposed driveway and parking space would not appear unusual. 9. The Council’s tree officer raised no objection to the loss of the tree on the grounds that there would be less pressure put on the tree adjacent to it. The loss of the tree, 1 G22 of TPO 029 Appeal Decision 6003744 3 which is sizeable in terms of its height and crown spread, would leave a noticeable gap in the boundary vegetation which would increase the visibility of the dwelling, particularly from the area around the road junction. However, other trees in the garden including the adjacent Yew would be retained and the street trees would be unaffected. Accordingly, these trees, and the substantial tree in the garden of the neighbouring property, would continue to partly obscure the dwelling. There would be no significant net loss of boundary wall, and the driveway would be defined by new gateposts and gates such that the sense of enclosure around the site would be retained. In addition, there would be no significant net increase in hardstanding. 10. The Council consider the dwelling to be a non-designated heritage asset although this is disputed by the appellant. In the absence of other convincing evidence, the significance of the building lies largely in its collective value with other properties in the area. On that basis, while the existing driveway position indicates how the dwelling has historically functioned, its relocation to align with the front elevation would not harm the significance of the building itself. I am also mindful that, in any event, the provision of a vehicular access in this position could be formed without the need for planning permission and have a similar effect. 11. On that basis, whilst the proposal would result in a limited change to the setting of the building, the character and significance of the conservation area would be preserved. Accordingly, the proposal would satisfy the statutory duty set out in the Act. For the same reasons, it would also comply with Policy JP-P2 of the Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan which requires, amongst other things, that development conserves, sustains and enhances the historic environment, and Policy R1 of the Core Strategy which requires that all new development must take account of surrounding building styles, landscapes and historic distinctiveness and that developers must demonstrate how the development will complement and enhance the existing features of historic significance including their wider settings, in particular in relation to conservation areas, listed buildings and other identified heritage assets. Other Matters 12. There is no dispute between the parties that this part of Harrop Road, close to the junction with Bower Road, is subject to on-street parking on both sides of the road reducing visibility at the site access and, in effect, reducing the road to a single carriageway. The area immediately outside the appellant’s driveway is protected by H bar road markings indicating the level of parking demand. At my site visit I witnessed a chaotic scene where several vehicles travelling towards each other along this narrowed stretch of busy road had to reverse in the carriageway and/or manoeuvre in the limited gaps between the parked cars to enable traffic to flow. Whilst this was a snapshot in time, given the prevailing road conditions I have no reason to believe this was an infrequent event. The Highways Authority considers the access to be safe but nevertheless removing reversing emerging vehicles from this situation seems to me to be a benefit of the scheme. 13. There is no evidence before me that the same demand for on-street parking occurs on the Bower Road frontage. Indeed, at the time of my visit there were no vehicles parked near this side of the appeal property. Moreover, the relocated parking area would allow vehicles to emerge in forward gear. The Highway Authority considers this to be a safer option and therefore a betterment to the existing situation. Appeal Decision 6003744 4 Accordingly, although I have found no conflict with the development plan in terms of the main issue, this matter carries significant weight in support of the proposal. 14. The appeal site lies within the setting of St Peter’s Church, a grade ll listed building. I am satisfied that the proposal would not harm the visual appearance of the setting of the building or its special interest as a heritage asset. Accordingly in this respect the proposal satisfies the statutory duty set out in section 66 (1) of the Act. Conditions 15. The Council has suggested conditions in the event of the appeal being allowed. In the interests of proper planning and to provide certainty the standard time limit and plans conditions are necessary. In order to protect other trees on the site and as such preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area a tree protection condition is necessary. Conclusion 16. For the reasons outlined above, the proposal complies with the development plan considered as a whole. Therefore, taking into account all matters raised, the appeal is allowed subject to conditions. Susan Ashworth INSPECTOR Appeal Decision 6003744 5