Alterations to front boundary masonry wall to create a vehicle parking hardstanding

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 August 2026 by J Bowyer BSc(Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 17 Aug 2026 Appeal Ref: 6005208 Leslie Cottage, Church Street, Dorking, Surrey RH4 1DW • 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 T Palmer against the decision of Mole Valley District Council. • The application Ref is MO/2025/02441. • The development proposed is ‘alterations to front boundary masonry wall to create a vehicle parking hardstanding’. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. The application form indicates that the development applied for was completed and I saw hardstanding which was in use for parking at my visit. I have nevertheless dealt with the appeal on the basis of the development as it is shown on the submitted plans. 3. The appeal site is located within the Dorking Conservation Area (‘the CA’) and includes a Grade II listed building which is listed as ‘Lesley Cottage’ (‘the Listed Building’). I have therefore been mindful of the duties at sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (‘the LBCA Act’) in determining the appeal. Main Issues 4. The main issues are: i) the effect of the proposal on the significance of the Listed Building; ii) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area including the Dorking CA; and iii) the effect of the proposal on pedestrian and highway safety. Reasons Listed Building 5. The list entry notes that the Listed Building is a timber-framed cottage dating to the 17th Century. It has a plain tiled roof with a set down gable to one side, a prominent brick stack and a roughcast render exterior, and sits on a similar building line to the neighbouring Leslie House, behind a shallow front garden which is marked by a low wall along the boundary with North Street. The main parties indicate that the boundary wall itself is of relatively modern construction, but there is no firm information before me to suggest that it does not broadly follow a historic plot limit. Appeal Decision 6005208 2 6. Insofar as it relates to this appeal, I consider that much of the significance of the Listed Building would derive from its age and its historic and architectural interest as an attractive traditional vernacular cottage which the Council notes was situated on the edge of the town. The modest front garden distinguishes the building from others nearby in closer proximity to the town centre which I saw typically adjoin the street edge, reflecting its historic edge of town position. This element of the building’s setting therefore informs some understanding of the cottage’s historic context and I find it to contribute to the significance of the Listed Building. 7. The proposal includes the removal of a section of the boundary wall to the front of the site. This may not have resulted in loss of historic fabric from the site. Nevertheless, it has resulted in a marked visual interruption to the enclosure of the historic plot. The submitted plans indicate provision of a course of header paving along the frontage which the appellant suggests would define the route of the wall and form a clear defined abutment with the road. However, this would have a relatively modest visual presence and it would not offer comparable sense of enclosure to the former wall. 8. The opening in the boundary wall also affords clear views of the blockwork paving which has been laid to form the parking space and which appears incongruously modern against the traditional materials of the Listed Building. The appellant refers to potential conditions relating to materials and detailing including a suggested reference to a ‘heritage-appropriate palette’, but they have provided no firm details of alternative surfacing materials to enable me to determine that a suitably sympathetic finish would be possible. 9. In any event, the hard surfacing occupies a notable proportion of the shallow frontage and in my view, its extent results in a dominant feature against the remaining soft landscaping. When used for parking, its position also results in any vehicle sitting very close to the front building line of the Listed Building and the street which creates an uncomfortable visual juxtaposition and a cramped appearance. 10. Taking these factors together, I find that the proposal results in an awkward and conspicuous feature which detracts from the setting of the Listed Building and causes harm to its significance. 11. The proposal would not affect the fabric of the Listed Building and would affect only part of its setting, albeit a relatively conspicuous part. Having regard to these factors and the scale of the proposal, I find that harm to the significance of the Listed Building would be ‘less than substantial’ in the terms of the National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework’), and at a fairly modest level. 12. Where a proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, the Framework advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. I return to this matter in my planning balance below. Character and Appearance 13. The Dorking Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan (‘the CAAMP’) identifies that the area includes a mix of building types of both higher and lower status and a diversity of architectural styles and building materials, although traditional vernacular materials predominate. It also highlights the well-defined Appeal Decision 6005208 3 hierarchy of streets, lanes, footpaths and alleys as important to the area’s special character. The appeal site is part of the North Street, Church Street and Mint Gardens character area which the CAAMP notes has a very distinctive smaller scale and narrow streets providing for a pleasant and attractive intimacy and enclosure. North Street itself is particularly narrow with buildings set close to the street providing for enclosure in keeping with this part of the CA, while mature planting within modest front gardens provides an appreciable verdant quality to views along the street. 14. Insofar as it relates to this appeal, the quality of the historic buildings, the use of traditional vernacular materials and the form and pattern of the town are all elements that I find to contribute to the character and appearance of the CA and thus its significance. The listed appeal property is a historic building which formerly sat on the edge of the town. Together with its plot, it adds to the enclosed and intimate quality of North Street and verdant views along the street and informs some understanding of how the area developed. I therefore find the site to contribute positively to the character, appearance and significance of the CA. 15. The Council’s Design Guidance for House Extensions and Outbuildings Supplementary Planning Document 2025 indicates that proposals likely to result in replacing front gardens largely by hard surfaces for parked vehicles will be resisted and that smaller front gardens occupied by parked vehicles are normally damaging to the character of residential streets and especially to Conservation Areas. 16. In this case, the removal of a section of the front boundary wall on the appeal site which I have found above to interrupt the enclosure of the historic plot has similarly diminished the sense of enclosure along North Street, an effect which would not be meaningfully reduced by the introduction of header paving. 17. In addition, the hard surfacing occupies a significant proportion of the site frontage which the Council indicates was formerly landscaped, resulting in an unusually stark and dominant feature which stands out against the more typical verdant quality of frontages in views along the street. The uncharacteristic nature of the development is exacerbated when occupied by a parked vehicle given that frontage parking is unusual in the vicinity of the site. The very close proximity of a parked vehicle to both the front building line of the appeal dwelling and the street further appears cramped and results in an awkward juxtaposition. 18. I find for these reasons that the proposal would detract from the character and appearance of the area resulting in conflict with Policy EN4 of the Mole Valley Local Plan 2024 (‘the LP’) which includes requirements for high quality design that makes a positive contribution to local character. 19. Furthermore, the proposal would not preserve the character or the appearance of the Dorking CA and would cause harm to its significance. Given the scale of the development and the localised nature of the effect, harm to the significance of the CA as a whole would be less than substantial in the terms of the Framework and at a very low level. There would nevertheless be harm to a designated heritage asset which I return to consider in my planning balance below. Highway Safety 20. The lack of turning space on the appeal site and very narrow width of North Street mean that vehicles would be likely to need to reverse to or from the nearby junction Appeal Decision 6005208 4 of North Street with Church Street in order to use the proposed parking space and the appellant has provided no firm evidence to suggest otherwise. 21. Based on my observations and the limited number of properties served, I do not doubt that vehicle traffic along North Street is very light and that speeds are low. However, I saw that both North Street and Church Street appeared to be relatively well-used as pedestrian routes, with pedestrians crossing the North Street/Church Street junction in various directions. Moreover, visibility around the junction is somewhat restricted by its geometry and the position of surrounding buildings. 22. As a result and given the narrow width of both North Street and Church Street close to the site, I find that reversing manoeuvres around the junction and to or from the appeal site would be likely to give rise to significant potential for conflict with pedestrians that would be detrimental to safety. The appellant notes that the Council has presented no collision data, swept path analysis or measured visibility studies, but neither has the appellant presented clear evidence to demonstrate that vehicle movements associated with the development would not result in likely conflict with pedestrians contrary to my observations. 23. The appellant suggests potential mitigation in the form of signage or markings within the forecourt to indicate a reverse-in/forward-out protocol. However, I am not satisfied that it would be possible to enforce adherence to such a protocol which would in any event still result in reversing manoeuvres into the site. I have also noted a suggestion of visibility aids such as a pedestrian awareness mirror, but no firm details have been provided and the potential effectiveness of such measures has not been demonstrated in evidence. I am not therefore satisfied that mitigation measures would offer adequate or effective means to prevent or meaningfully reduce the identified risk of conflict with pedestrians. 24. The appellant advises that the property already has ownership of a garage accessed from the corner of Church Street requiring a reversing manoeuvre off the road, although they indicate that this is unsuited for modern vehicles. However, the garage access directly adjoins the junction so that reversing distances would be much shorter than required to access the space now proposed and there would be no need to reverse along the narrow North Street carriageway. The circumstances are not therefore directly comparable to the appeal proposal. Furthermore, the garage would remain while the appeal development would introduce additional reversing manoeuvres so that there would be greater overall potential for conflict. Given these factors, the existing garage is not in my view compelling evidence that the proposal would not be detrimental to highway safety 25. Nor have I been provided with firm evidence indicating an existing pattern of kerbside stopping at the junction resulting in harm to highway safety, or clear information to demonstrate how any such kerbside stopping would be notably reduced by the proposal. It is not therefore apparent that the proposal would offer an overall benefit to highway safety. 26. The Framework outlines that development should only be prevented on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network, following mitigation, would be severe. 27. Although manoeuvres to and from the site could cause disruption to the free flow of pedestrian and vehicular traffic, delays would be likely to be relatively infrequent Appeal Decision 6005208 5 and of short duration so that I consider effects on highway convenience would be very limited. 28. However, while I find that effects on the flow of traffic and wider highway network would not be severe, I conclude that the risk of conflict with pedestrians would cause unacceptable harm to pedestrian and highway safety. It would therefore conflict with Policy INF1 of the LP insofar as it broadly seeks, amongst other things, a safe transport network and to ensure that development would not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety. Other Matters 29. The appellant sought advice from Surrey County Council Highways before works to form the parking space took place and advises that they were unaware that a planning application would be required. I have no firm reason to doubt that the appellant acted in good faith, but these factors do not alter my assessment of the planning merits of the appeal proposal. Planning Balance 30. I have found that the proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area and unacceptable harm to highway safety. There would also be harm to the significance of both the Dorking CA and the Listed Building on the site. Heritage Balance 31. The harm caused to the significance of the Listed Building would be less than substantial and at a relatively modest level while harm to the significance of the CA would be at a very low level. Nevertheless, the Framework advises that when considering the impact of development on the significance of designated heritage assets, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation and the harm in each case attracts considerable importance and weight. 32. The appellant has suggested that a condition could be imposed referring to all works being reversible and any future reinstatement of a wall being in heritage materials and coursing. However, it seems to me that there would be little realistic prospect of reversion given the effect that this would have on the availability of parking. In this context, the development would be likely to be permanent and the suggested condition would not offer effective mitigation for the identified harm. 33. Against this harm, the appellant argues that there would be environmental benefit through drainage and use of permeable materials to improve runoff management. However, there is no firm evidence to suggest a prior issue that would be resolved or improved by drainage and runoff management and it seems to me that this would relate to mitigation of the effects of the development. Similarly, alterations to materials may be able to define the line of the former boundary wall and might offer a more sympathetic hard surface, albeit that this has not been clearly demonstrated, to that currently present, but I have found above that this would not mitigate or outweigh the adverse effects of the development. I am not therefore persuaded that these factors amount to public benefits weighing in favour of the proposal. 34. The proposal would provide an on-site parking space for the appeal property. However, while this may reduce pressure for kerbside parking, the effect would be very small and there is no compelling evidence of current harm resulting from Appeal Decision 6005208 6 parking locally. Furthermore, the appellant asserts that unpredictable kerbside stopping at a constrained junction would be reduced but I have found above that there would overall be unacceptable harm to highway safety. While I appreciate that it would be likely to be of benefit to occupiers of the dwelling, I am not therefore satisfied that the provision of a parking space would offer a clear public benefit. 35. In my assessment, public benefits are insufficient to outweigh the harm that would be caused to the CA and the Listed Building which attracts considerable importance and weight in each case. 36. Accordingly, I conclude that the proposal would fail to preserve the setting and significance of the Listed Building and the character and the appearance of the Dorking CA would be neither conserved nor enhanced. There is no clear and convincing justification for the harm that the development would cause to these heritage assets and the proposal would fail to satisfy the requirements of the LBCA Act and the Framework. There would also be conflict with Policy EN6 of the LP insofar as it broadly seeks the conservation and enhancement of heritage assets and advises that proposals resulting in less than substantial harm to listed buildings will not be permitted unless public benefits would outweigh the harm. Overall Balance 37. The proposal would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area, heritage assets and highway safety resulting in conflict with Policies EN4, EN6 and INF1 of the LP. Insofar as they are relevant to this appeal, these policies broadly reflect objectives in the Framework seeking development that is sympathetic to local character, conservation and enhancement of heritage assets and to avoid unacceptable impacts on highway safety, and there is no firm evidence before me to indicate that they should be considered out of date in the terms of paragraph 11. d) of the Framework. In any event, given my findings above, I consider that policies in the Framework that protect designated heritage assets provide a strong reason for refusing the development proposed. 38. In my assessment, the cumulative harm and resulting conflict with the development plan attracts significant weight and I find that the limited benefits of the proposal would be insufficient to outweigh the harm and the resulting conflict with the development plan. Conclusion 39. For the reasons given above, I find that the proposal would conflict with the development plan when it is read as a whole, and material considerations do not indicate that a decision contrary to the development plan should be reached. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. J Bowyer INSPECTOR