Removal of the existing front boundary wall and formation of a vehicular access and driveway

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 1 July 2026 by Naiomi Kempton BA(Hons), PGDip, MA, IHBC, MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 27 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6009087 18 Phillips Avenue, Middlesbrough TS5 5PS • 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 Umar Ishaque against the decision of Middlesbrough Council. • The application Ref is 25/0475/FUL. • The development proposed is removal of the existing front boundary wall and formation of a vehicular access and driveway. This decision is issued in accordance with section 56 (2) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 as amended and supersedes that issued on 10 July 2026. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. The appeal property is situated in a conservation area. As required by section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act), I have paid special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area. 3. The description of development is taken from the planning application form, with the extraneous information omitted for clarity. 4. The appeal relates to a boundary wall fronting numbers 18 and 20 Philips Avenue, as shown on existing drawing number 1 of 3. At the time of my site visit, I observed that the boundary wall fronting number 18 has been partially removed and removed in its entirety at number 20, as shown on proposed drawing number 2 of 3. A dropped kerb has been installed, as shown on proposed drawing number 2 of 3. The proposed works include the installation of hardstanding and appropriate drainage measures to prevent surface water discharging onto the public highway, and provision of an electric vehicle charging point. For the avoidance of doubt, my determination of the appeal is based on the proposed development and not on the works constructed. 5. The red edged site boundary relates to number 18 Philips Avenue. I have determined this appeal on that basis. Notwithstanding that the submitted plans show a shared driveway with number 20, a separate appeal has been made relating to number 20. That appeal is invalid. Appeal Decision 6009087 2 6. A new Middlesbrough Local Plan has been drafted. However, as it has not yet completed the examination process and has not yet been adopted, it is subject to alteration or amendment. This limits the weight I can give its policies. Main Issue 7. The main issue is whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of Linthorpe Conservation Area (CA). Reasons Significance of the CA 8. The significance of the CA derives from being one of Middlesbrough’s best- preserved examples of late Victorian and Edwardian suburban planning. It reflects a period of rapid growth as an industrial centre and suburban expansion as wealthy merchants, professionals and industrialists established high-quality housing beyond the original town centre. 9. Pertinent to the appeal, the significance of the CA also stems from the area’s architectural quality and townscape value. The CA contains a rich collection of substantial villas, terraces and semi-detached properties. Many retain original features such as bay windows, decorative brickwork, slate roofs, timber sash windows, ornate porches, boundary walls and cast-iron railings, creating a distinctive and cohesive streetscape. 10. In contrast to the dense industrial housing found elsewhere in Middlesbrough, Linthorpe was carefully planned with wide tree-lined avenues, generous gardens and spacious plots. There is consistency in the layout of streets, mature trees, garden boundaries and the relationship between buildings and open spaces. Together these elements create a strong sense of place and historic continuity, which positively contributes to the character and appearance of the CA. The effect of the proposal on the significance of the CA 11. Philips Avenue is laid out in a wide, tree-lined boulevard, which creates a leafy, arcadian character, typical of this part of the CA. The dwellings in this street are set back from the pavements behind front gardens and screened to a greater or lesser extent by mature trees, gates, piers, boundary walls and hedges. This provides properties with a sense of privacy. The front boundary walls provide continuity and enclosure, a clear delineation that distinguishes between public and private spaces. 12. The proposed development would be a departure from the prevailing character. Removal of the boundary wall would erode the sense of enclosure and hinder legibility of private space. It would disrupt the continuity and consistency afforded by this important boundary feature and undermine the area’s architectural quality. The laying of hardstanding and the resultant loss of the front garden and soft landscaping would create a discordant element in an otherwise attractive, coherent and harmonious street scene, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the CA. 13. For these reasons, I find that the proposed development would fail to respond to local character or reinforce local distinctiveness. It would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA. This harm would be less than Appeal Decision 6009087 3 substantial, at the mid-point of the scale, in relation to the significance of the CA that I have identified, but nevertheless of considerable importance and weight. Public benefits and planning balance 14. The proposal would provide in-curtilage parking provision and relieve pressure on highway capacity in terms of on-street parking. Notwithstanding this, given the wide, tree-lined boulevards characteristic of the area, I observed that the established practice of on-street parking along Philips Avenue and surrounding streets, can be readily accommodated without causing unwelcome congestion to the detriment of highway safety or to the character or appearance of the area. 15. I noted examples of driveways in the immediate vicinity where the front garden has been lost to create in-curtilage parking. Such incremental development erodes the architectural consistency in layout, design and the palette and application of materials. The Council’s Article 4(2) Direction seeks to arrest the erosion arising from these incremental alterations to the detriment of the area’s character and appearance, thereby helping to preserve original architectural features and to ensure that new development respects the area’s historic appearance. The proposed development would be contrary to the objectives of the Article 4(2) Direction, which states that such development will be resisted. 16. The appellant contends that the development would be reversible and expressed a willingness to undertake mitigation measures such as reinstating part of the boundary wall or introducing landscaping, however, such measures would not be sufficient to overcome the harm identified. 17. Therefore, it has not been demonstrated that the public benefits arising from the proposed development would outweigh the harm identified to the significance of the CA. As such, the proposal would fail to satisfy the requirements of the Act, paragraph 215 of the Framework, and development plan policy insofar as relevant. 18. The proposed development would be contrary to the following policies of the Middlesbrough Core Strategy (2008): Policy CS4 sets out a number of sustainable development principles to which developments are required to contribute, including (k) protecting and enhancing Middlesbrough’s historic heritage and townscape quality, and (l) delivering development of a high quality design that contributes to improvements in the quality of the townscape; Policy CS5 requires all developments to demonstrate a high quality design in terms of layout, form and contribution to the character and appearance of the area. The policy sets out a number of requirements, the achievement of which all developments are required to contribute, including (h) preservation or enhancement of the character and appearance of conservation areas and other areas of special interest and character; Policy DC1(b) requires the visual appearance and layout of development and its relationship with the surrounding area in terms of scale, design and materials to be of high quality. 19. The proposal would also be contrary to the following policies of the emerging Middlesbrough Publication Local Plan (PLP) (2025): Policies CR1, CR2 and CR3 which collectively require high quality design in all development proposals; Policy H12, states that development within or affecting the setting of a CA will be permitted where it sustains or enhances the significance of the CA. Given that the Appeal Decision 6009087 4 PLP is at examination stage and may be subject to change prior to being adopted, these policies, in any event, have limited planning weight. Other Matters 20. All matters have been taken into account in reaching my decisions on these appeals. Conclusion 21. For the reasons given above, the appeal should be dismissed. Naiomi Kempton INSPECTOR