Removal of part of the front wall, erection of dropped kerb to create a driveway to front of dwelling, rebuild remaining wall and create a curved wall feature to the entrance

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15 April 2026 by K Craddock BA (Hons) MAUD MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 19 May 2026 Appeal Ref: 6005683 34 Station Rd, Alsager, Cheshire East ST7 2PD • 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 Tony Bullock against the decision of Cheshire East Council. • The application Ref is 25/3240/HOUS. • The development proposed is the removal of part of the front wall, erection of dropped kerb to create a driveway to front of dwelling, rebuild remaining wall and create a curved wall feature to the entrance. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. The description of development contained on the original planning application form included superfluous information. Therefore, for purposes of clarity, the description in the banner heading above is taken from the decision notice. 3. I saw at my site visit that works to the front wall and driveway have been carried out. However, there is a notable discrepancy with those works and the plans submitted with the planning application. The submitted plans show chamfered angled sections to the wall flanking the proposed vehicular entrance, whereas the built wall has curved wall features. The appellant has submitted new plans as part of the appeal, which reflect what has been built. However, amended plans cannot be accepted as part of the Householder appeal process and it is important that my determination is made against the same plans that were considered by the Council and interested parties at the time of the planning application. To do otherwise would be procedurally unfair. Accordingly, I have made my determination upon the plans originally submitted. 4. The appeal site is within Alsager Conservation Area (CA) wherein I have a statutory duty under Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area. Main Issue 5. The main issue is whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA having particular regard to the alignment of the front wall and the width of the vehicular access. Appeal Decision 6005683 2 Reasons 6. The CA is predominantly residential in nature with a concentration of attractive Victorian architecture. There is a range of detached and semi-detached villas and houses in generous plots, often with much mature landscaping. Brick and clay roof tiles are prevalent, demonstrating the use of local materials or those typical of the Victorian era. Across the CA properties have a defined relationship to the street. Boundary walls along the frontages tend to reinforce the materials and alignment of the buildings. Therefore, the significance of the CA is derived primarily from its architectural value as good examples of Victorian dwellings, and the historic importance of the built environment in reflecting the evolution of this part of Alsager. 7. The character and appearance of the CA along Station Road is defined by a row of houses on one side and Milton Park, enclosed by metal railings, on the other. The appeal property is a two storey semi-detached Victorian dwelling within this row. There is a continuity of appearance in the architectural style and proportions of these dwellings and this, together with their continuous building line, set back behind boundary treatments, front gardens and driveways, are strong elements creating a distinctive sense of place. 8. A key characteristic of the CA is the type of materials and their use. In the immediate vicinity of the appeal property, there is a particularly distinct and pleasing character where the original boundary walls are formed of red brick, Staffordshire blue brick and Staffordshire blue saddleback copings. Of note are the frontages of Nos 32-40 Station Road, where the brickwork forming the red and blue brick boundary walls displays narrow joints and a compact arrangement. These architectural and visual qualities make a positive contribution to the CA. 9. The chamfered alignment of the proposed wall would be out of character with the original straight alignment of the boundary wall and would appear an alien and over-engineered element in the streetscene. It would weaken the strong, distinctive and regular configuration of the relationship between the house and the street, thereby undermining its architectural significance. Given that it concerns the frontage, the proposed works would be immediately apparent in the street scene. Using historic fabric to construct the wall would potentially reduce the degree of harm but would not surmount the detrimental and incongruous effect created by the alignment. 10. In considering the width of the access, there is variety along the length of Station Road, when viewed as a whole, in the exact form of front gardens and driveways, including the surfacing materials and width of accesses. I do not find the proposed development harmful to the CA with regard to the width of the access (measured at its narrowest point) or the principle of creating a driveway and parking area. There is equally much variation in the type and form of planting and vegetation along the front boundaries and I do not find harm with the changes to the landscaping resulting from the proposal. 11. Nevertheless, in the terminology of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), overall I find there would be harm at the lower end of ‘less than substantial’ towards the character and appearance of the CA as a result of the proposed development. Appeal Decision 6005683 3 12. Paragraph 215 of the Framework stipulates that, where a proposed development will lead to ‘less than substantial’ harm to a heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against any public benefits arising from the proposals. I acknowledge the creation of additional off-street parking would facilitate convenience for the appeal property and potentially improve the flow of traffic generally. Nevertheless, this attracts limited weight as a public benefit because: i) it would be primarily a private benefit for the occupant and ii) there is little substantive highway evidence to show a serious concern regarding the flow of traffic, or that chamfered boundary walls are required to make access safe as part of a visibility splay. Hence, it is probable that such public benefits could be secured in a manner that is less harmful to the character and appearance of the CA. 13. Paragraph 212 of the Framework affords that great weight should be given to the conservation of a designated heritage asset, of which the CA is one. I find that the public benefits put forward by the appellant are insufficient to outweigh the harm that would be caused to the character and appearance of the CA, and therefore the proposal conflicts with the expectations of the Act and national planning policy to protect the historic environment. 14. The appellant has drawn my attention to other examples of curved wall features in the vicinity. None of these were directly comparable due to being constructed in a different manner to the proposed development or out of different materials, or located in a different setting within the CA, and therefore I afford them little weight in the determination of this appeal. 15. For the above reasons, I conclude that the development would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA and conflicts with Policies SE1, SE7 and SD2 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy 2010-2030 (CELPS) (2017), Policies GEN1, HER1 and HER3 of the Site Allocations and Development Policies Document (2022) and Policies H6 and NBE6 of the Alsager Neighbourhood Plan 2018-2030. Together these policies require that, amongst other things, new development should make a positive contribution to its surroundings by conserving and enhancing the character and quality of the historic environment. Conclusion 16. For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole and having regard to all other matters, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. K Craddock INSPECTOR