Changes to front boundary wall and part of the lawn in the front garden to be replaced with a hard surface

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 30 June 2026 by J Reed MPlan MRTPI Decision by A M Nilsson BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 17th September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6008484 Woodlands, West Park Road, Bensham, Gateshead NE8 4SP • 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 and Mrs Ayaz and Saima Akram against the decision of Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council. • The application Ref is DC/25/01230/HHA. • The development proposed is changes to front boundary wall and part of the lawn in the front garden to be replaced with a hard surface. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Preliminary Matters 3. On 17 August 2026 the Government published a revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). It includes changes with respect to heritage matters with specific regard to the degrees of harm. That said, the actions of finding harm to a designated heritage asset is not materially different from the previous iteration of the Framework. I am therefore satisfied that I can proceed without further consultation with the main parties since, with the above in mind, their respective cases would not be prejudiced. 4. From my site visit I saw that the development had been completed. The development appears to be in accordance with what is shown on the submitted plans, and I have dealt with the appeal on this basis. 5. S72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires when determining proposals in conservation areas that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area. Main Issues 6. The main issues are 1) the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the Saltwell Conservation Area; and 2) the highway impacts of the development. Appeal Decision 6008484 2 Reasons for the Recommendation Character and appearance 7. The appeal site is situated within the Saltwell Conservation Area (CA) and is also identified as a Non-Designated Heritage Asset (NDHA). The CA covers the 19th century leafy suburb which surrounds Saltwell Park. The area is distinctive through the diversity in its tree coverage as well as its variety of architecture. The area consists of large Edwardian sandstone villas and Victorian polychromatic brick houses in either semi-detached or terraced formations. The boundary treatments, including stone block walls, low brick walls, timber fencing, iron railings and hedges, further contribute to the strong sense of urban enclosure to the streets. Given the above, I find that the significance of the CA insofar as it relates to the appeal to be primarily associated with the architectural and historic importance of the cohesive front boundary treatments and the verdant gardens they enclose. 8. I observed on my site visit that original front boundary treatments have generally been retained with the original architecture and urban design of the area well preserved. Consequently, changes to an individual building may have a substantial impact on the collective character of the wider street scene. Moreover, given their architectural importance and the positive contribution they make to townscape character, the retention of original boundary treatments is key to maintain this character. 9. Although the CA is a densely developed townscape, the design approach allows properties to be individually read and results in a sense of spaciousness due to their verdant front gardens that are readily visible from the public realm. The modest openings in the boundary walls are part of this design approach and contribute positively to this ‘sense of place’. 10. The removal of a large portion of the boundary wall has eroded the historic fabric and uniform development pattern of the pairs of semi-detached dwellings in this part of the CA. The development has disrupted this original design and has diminished the local distinctiveness. This has been detrimental to the local character and history, including the surrounding built environment, failing to maintain the areas strong sense of place. 11. The development incorporates sleeper style timber lengths which run perpendicular with the retained section of the wall. Whilst the use of a traditional material such as this can often be successfully integrated within heritage assets, its use here adjoining the retained wall results in a jarring appearance where the timber is seen as dominant and incongruous. This would be particularly the case when there is no vehicle on the driveway. I note from my site visit that the boundary treatments which positively contribute are those which incorporate returns either in the same material, or a material to complement that used in the primary front boundary. In contrast the appeal development has disrupted the visual rhythm and has diminished the sense of enclosure to the street. This is further exacerbated by the additional hardstanding which has significantly reduced the verdant appearance of the front garden. Due to the prominence of the development in the street scene, it has resulted in harm to the CA as a whole. The harm to the character and appearance of the CA, and thereby its significance, is a matter to which I give great weight. Appeal Decision 6008484 3 12. I am mindful that there is a larger opening in the boundary treatment with accompanying hard standing serving the dwelling at the end of the grouping on West Park Road. However, there is little evidence to indicate that this double driveway was not part of the original layout due to its location in front of a double garage to the side of a dwelling. 13. In regard to the wooden fence boundary treatment serving the house on the corner of West Park Road and Saltwell Road. This fence clearly serves a side/rear garden in contrast to the front gardens of the other properties on West Park Road. 14. Furthermore, as outlined above, the front boundary treatments and verdant gardens on West Park Road retain their original form and appearance unlike the appeal development, and in order to prevent further erosion the Council introduced an Article 4 Direction to prevent this from happening. 15. Caselaw1 has established that a conservation area can be preserved if altered by development. However, this does not provide justification for inappropriate development which disrupts the conservation area’s character and appearance. 16. The appellants have contested that the appeal development enhances the grandeur of the appeal dwelling which the previous arrangement failed to do so. However, for the reasons set out the development fails to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the CA. 17. I note the appellants case that the provision of additional parking at the appeal site will improve the visual amenity of the area by reducing the level of parking on the highway. However, as there are no parking restrictions to West Park Road there is nothing preventing individuals that do not reside at the appeal site from continuing to park on the highway. 18. I also acknowledge the appellants’ willingness to agree to conditions to amend the surface material of the driveway to something more appropriate. However, whilst this would improve the character and appearance of this element of the development it would not alleviate the harm I have identified in regard to the loss of the front boundary treatment. 19. In the context of the Framework, taking into account the nature and scale of the development, I consider the harm to be moderate, but nevertheless of considerable importance and weight. Policy HE6 of the Framework advises that where a development proposal would harm the significance of a designated heritage asset, the effect on the asset and its significance should be weighed against any public benefits resulting from the proposal. In undertaking this balance, I have taken account of the Planning Practice Guidance which outlines what constitutes a public benefit. 20. Policy HE6 also states that any harm to a designated heritage asset will be a matter of considerable importance and weight. The appellants consider that the development represents the efficient use of urban land by increasing parking at the appeal site as well as promoting the sustainability credentials of the development. I am not, however, convinced that the use of this part of the site surpasses the previous arrangement in efficiency, and that the sustainability aspects are not achievable by less harmful means. The public benefits put forward therefore attract 1 South Lakeland District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1992] UKHL 17 Appeal Decision 6008484 4 limited weight and are not sufficient to outweigh the harm identified and the great weight I apply to the CA’s conservation in line with the Framework. 21. Therefore, I conclude that the development does not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA. This is contrary to Policy CS15 of the Planning for the Future Core Strategy and Urban Core Plan for Gateshead and Newcastle upon Tyne 2010-2030 (2015) (the CS) and Policies MSGP24 and MSGP25 of the Making Spaces for Growing Places Local Plan Document for Gateshead (2021) (the LP). These require, among other things, that proposals preserve and enhance the character, appearance and setting of heritage assets. Highway impacts 22. The appeal site is located midway along West Park Road and is separated from the highway by a footpath. The development has resulted in the removal of a large portion of the front boundary treatment which has, in some respects, resulted in an improved visibility from the appeal dwelling’s driveway than the previous arrangement. As a result, I am satisfied that the new arrangement is satisfactory in providing adequate visibility for highway users. 23. Therefore, even though the front boundary treatment exceeds the recommended height outlined by the Council, satisfactory visibility can be achieved and there is not an adverse effect on pedestrian safety as a consequence, as required by the National Planning Policy Framework. 24. I also note that the Council have stated they would not support a dropped kerb application if it was forthcoming. However, this is a matter outside the planning process. 25. The Council have referred to the conflict with Policy MSGP15 in relation to the apparent overprovision of parking for the development. The development has resulted in a net gain of one parking space serving the property. The policy seeks to provide a level of parking necessary to secure the safe and effective operation of the development and refers to the Council’s parking standards in Appendix 4a. The standard, however, relates to new residential development which is not the case with the appeal development. Using the language of the policy, I do not consider that the parking prohibits the safe and effective operation of the site. This does not lead to demonstrable harm to highway safety. 26. I therefore conclude that the development is not harmful to highway safety. The development is therefore in accordance with Policy CS13 of the CS and MSGP15 of the LP. These seek amongst other things for development to connect safely to the existing transport network. 27. The development also accords with the Framework and its requirements for development to provide safe and suitable access to the site. Other Matters 28. Turning to the appellant’s case that the development helps prevent the obstruction of the pavement from cables relating to on street electric vehicle charging, it is not clear why this was not possible under the previous arrangement at the appeal site. Appeal Decision 6008484 5 29. I note the appellant’s argument that parking a motorhome or a caravan on a single width driveway would have more of a visual impact. However, these are moveable vehicles whereas in contrast the development is a permanent addition to the CA. 30. Policy S4 of the National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework) states that development proposals within settlements should be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects, when assessed against the national decision-making policies in the Framework. The appellant has set out the benefits of the scheme including but not limited to facilitating electric charging and removing vehicles from the highway. However, the benefits before me have limited weight and they are substantially outweighed by the adverse effects when considered against the decision-making policies of the Framework which include a requirement that developments respond to their context and integrate and enhance their surroundings. Conclusion and Recommendation 31. Whilst I have found in favour of the appellant on the second main issue, this is an absence of harm and thus a neutral matter. There is conflict with the development on the first main issue and there are no material considerations which justify granting permission contrary to the development plan in this case. I therefore recommend the appeal be dismissed. J Reed APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 32. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. A M Nilsson INSPECTOR