Resubmission of withdrawn 25/00009/FUL - New vehicular access with tree removal, termination existing shared access, replacement of trees and vegetation

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 24 March 2026 by Sarah Colebourne MA, MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 14 April 2026 Appeal Ref: 6004141 20 Brincliffe Crescent, Sheffield, S11 9AW • 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 M Smith against the decision of Sheffield City Council. • The application Ref is 25/02450/FUL. • The development proposed is described as ‘Resubmission of withdrawn 25/00009/FUL - New vehicular access with tree removal, termination existing shared access, replacement of trees and vegetation’. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. The Council’s decision refers to the proposed development as ‘New vehicular access with termination of existing shared access, removal of trees with associated landscaping including replacement trees’. As this describes the proposal more succinctly, I have considered it on this basis but have referred to the withdrawn application in my reasoning below. 3. I have noted the appellant’s request that the site boundary is considered as shown on the Proposed Site Plan and not as that shown on the Site Location Plan and as this would not prejudice the interests of any of the parties, I have considered the appeal accordingly. Main Issue 4. The main issue in this appeal is whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the significance of the Nether Edge Conservation Area (CA) and its effect on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 5. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that when considering the impact of new development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to its conservation. I have also had special regard to section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) as amended. 6. The historical and architectural significance of this large CA derives from its development as a Victorian and Edwardian residential suburb. The Council’s CA Appraisal shows that the appeal site lies within the Brincliffe and Psalter Lane Appeal Decision 6004141 2 Character Area of large villas on substantial plots within landscaped grounds. Brincliffe Crescent contains many such dwellings but there are also several examples of modern dwellings that have been built within the grounds of the original dwellings on the same side of the road as the appeal site. Some of those have individual accesses (nos 12A and 12B) whilst others have shared accesses with a historic neighbouring dwelling (no 10, no 2B). On the opposite side of the road, there are dwellings built in the 1930’s and more recently and most of those have individual accesses, many of which will have preceded the designation of the CA in 2002. Despite the number of individual accesses on both sides of the road, there are several lengthy sections of unbroken stone wall along both sides of the road that form significant and positive features of the CA. 7. I saw at my visit that the appeal site has a wide front boundary of a high stone wall with a mature hedge above and mature frontage planting and trees. The curving and sloping nature of the road at this point, together with significantly higher ground levels behind the front boundary, means that it is clearly seen in both approaches and is very prominent within the street scene. It forms part of a long, continuous, unbroken length of wall and hedge which together with other lengthy sections of wall and hedge in the street on both this side and opposite, results in a sense of enclosure with a solidity and greenery that contribute strongly to the character and appearance of the street scene and the CA. My impressions are supported by the Council’s CA Appraisal which refers to trees as a defining feature of the area and to stone walls as a very significant feature in the area that are largely continuous. 8. The appeal dwelling is a two storey detached house built in 2016 (planning permission ref 12/03369/FUL) and within the former grounds of Muswell Lodge, a late C19th dwelling which, whilst not listed, is identified as a building of historic interest in the CA Appraisal. Both dwellings sit on higher ground levels well above the street but are well screened from the street by the frontage walls and planting either side of the shared, curving access drive which originally served Muswell Lodge and was widened following a 2016 permission. 9. This proposal is sought, following a withdrawn proposal last year (25/00009/FUL), to provide a separate access for the appeal dwelling. It would remove a section of the existing wall and hedge together with four trees to provide a 3.5m wide access with stone piers and timber gates in an Arts and Crafts style, a block paved driveway and an extension of the existing gravelled parking area in front of the dwelling. The stone removed from the wall would be reused to block up the existing opening into the parking area from the existing shared access. New areas of soft landscaping would be formed adjacent to that and on either side of the proposed access. Four new extra-heavy trees would be planted between the existing and the proposed accesses. 10. The proposed opening in broadly the centre of this long section of wall and hedge would disrupt the continuity of the boundary and would diminish the solidity and sense of enclosure that is so important to the character and appearance of the street scene and this part of the CA. The re-use of the stone to block up the existing opening into the parking area within the site which the appellant says had previously removed historic walling under the previous permission would not mitigate the disruption to the front boundary. The proposed opening would therefore fail to preserve the character or appearance of the CA and would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the street scene. Appeal Decision 6004141 3 11. The Council’s Landscape Officer’s comments show that there was no objection to the removal of the four trees (T3, T4, T5 and T11) which were referred to as ‘low quality specimens’, supporting their identification as category C trees by the appellant’s consultants. Whilst the planning officer’s assessment in their report considers that ‘their collective presence along the front boundary contributes positively to the character and appearance of the conservation area’, and ‘help to soften the ‘hard edges’ of built development’, from what I have seen it seems that whilst they have currently have some value in the street scene and contribute to the screening of the appeal dwelling, given their condition and quality and the number of other trees within the site, that value is limited. The dwelling has an attractive design with Arts and Crafts detailing that sits well on its plot and does not need to be completely screened from view. The remaining trees on the site would continue to provide some softening. As such, the loss of the trees proposed for removal would not be significant and would be mitigated by the planting of four new trees, which would be clearly seen in the approach down the street even though three of those would be set back from the frontage. I have noted that previous applications for the removal of trees on the site have been granted. 12. However, the Landscape Officer did object to the extension of the gravelled parking area into the root protection area of a category A tree (T19, a mature cedar). At my visit, I noted that the tree, although sited away from the front boundary further into the garden, can be clearly seen in the approach up the street from its lower end and has much value in the street scene. Notwithstanding the measures proposed in the appellant’s Arboricultural Reports, as more than 20% of the tree’s root protection area would be impacted by the extension to the parking area, it would be contrary to the advice in BS 5837:2012 ‘Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction– Recommendations’ and conditions for tree protection would not mitigate this sufficiently. I have, however, noted that the Council did not object to the loss of that tree in its decision and my concerns on this matter are therefore not determinative. 13. Concern was also expressed regarding the substantial excavation required for the new access given the differences in ground levels between the street and the front garden which would infringe the root protection areas of adjacent trees shown for retention. It was advised that further details of any retaining structure were required but not requested as it was considered unreasonable given the other heritage concerns. In the absence of those details and given my objection to the removal of the wall, this is not determinative either. 14. However, I conclude that, by reason of the new opening in the front boundary wall, the proposed development would fail to preserve or enhance the significance of the CA and would significantly harm the character and appearance of the street scene. Whilst the harm in this case would be less than substantial and at the lower end of the spectrum, it still carries considerable weight, and the Framework also requires that any harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset should require clear and convincing justification. Where the harm is less than substantial, it should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. 15. The appellant’s heritage consultants say that public benefit would arise from the scheme by reinstating the existing shared access to Muswell Lodge as a private Victorian drive as originally intended and the restoration of Muswell Lodge as the primary residence within its plot. Appeal Decision 6004141 4 16. They consider that the plot was historically reserved for a dwelling which would have most likely been accessed from the road and that this is indicated by a straight joint in the wall (which I noted at my visit) and by OS maps dated 1905, 1927 and 1937 referred to in the heritage report submitted with the application (TJC2025.86 Version 1.0). However, that report also contains a photo dated 1940 and an OS map dated 1952 which show that the appeal site was by then incorporated into the grounds of Muswell Lodge. A coach house (now no 22) to Muswell Lodge that is sited adjacent to the south eastern boundary to the appeal site and now separated from Muswell Lodge by the site is shown on an OS map dated 1924. That was converted to a dwelling following permission in 2002. It is clear that whatever the original intentions of the developers of the area and there is insufficient evidence regarding those, from around 1940 until the appeal dwelling was built in 2016, the appeal site formed part of the grounds of Muswell Lodge. 17. Muswell Lodge stands on higher ground and a larger plot than the appeal dwelling and has a larger footprint and a more imposing scale and design. From what I have seen, I agree with the Council that the current arrangement of the properties does not undermine the status of Muswell Lodge as the principal dwelling within its plot. The existing shared driveway, granted as part of the permission for the appeal dwelling, retains a clear physical and perpetual separation between the two properties, with Muswell Lodge remaining legible as the primary residence. I find then that the creation of a separate access would not amount to a public benefit sufficient to outweigh the harm that would be caused as required by the Framework. 18. I have noted the letter of support from the neighbouring occupier at Muswell Lodge and their wish for improved security but am not persuaded that there are no other measures that could be employed to improve that. The example at 53 Kingfield Road (ref 25/01134/FUL) referred to involved the removal of a much smaller section of wall and is not directly comparable. 19. Those matters do not, therefore, amount to the sufficient public benefits that would justify the proposal or alter my findings in this case. As such, the proposal would be contrary to development plan policies CS74 in the Sheffield Development Framework Core Strategy (2009), H14, BE15, BE16, BE17 and BE18 in the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan (1998) which together seek to ensure that new development is sensitive in terms of its layout and does not harm the character of Conservation Areas or Areas of Special Character . It would also be contrary to the requirements of the Framework. Conclusion 20. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposed development would be contrary to the development plan and there are no material considerations that would outweigh that. The appeal should be dismissed. Sarah Colebourne INSPECTOR