Appeal 3278869

The appeal is dismissed.

Planning permission was granted for the erection of a 1.2 metre high wall with railings and electric gate to the front boundary of [site address] . A condition was attached to ensure that soft landscaping is planted in front of the wall. The appellant seeks to remove condition 3 so that the wall and gates can be constructed without the planting.

I have no reason to disagree with the conclusions reached by the Council in respect of all other issues relating to the determination of the planning application.

The main issue is whether condition 3 is necessary and reasonable in the interest of the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The appeal site comprises a newly constructed bungalow. At the time of my site visit, the front boundary was open with a large area of gravel and hardstanding to the front of the dwelling. The main parties have highlighted that previously there was a hedge to the front boundary of the appeal site.

Within the surrounding area there are a mix of boundary treatments including hedges, walls and fencing which vary in height. There are boundary treatments within the vicinity of the site which have no planting in front of them and are higher than the wall approved. The appellant has drawn my attention to the properties opposite the appeal site. I observed on my site visit that [address] had soft landscaping adjacent to the boundary treatment within the site which was visible from the highway. Although [address] had a high boundary wall, the hedge above softened its impact.

I noted on my site visit that in general the area is largely verdant. Where there is hard landscaping this is softened by planting such as hedges, plants and grass adjacent to the boundary treatment.

The condition ensures that soft landscaping is planted to soften the boundary wall and to ensure that the scheme is in keeping with the character of the surrounding area and previous boundary treatment. Without the condition and the soft landscaping, the boundary treatment would have a negative impact upon the surrounding area. This is because it would not reflect the verdant character of the area. I recognise that the condition is specific in stating the species, spacing and height of the hedge. Nonetheless, without a precise condition an alternative and inappropriate hedge could be planted. Thus, the condition is necessary to ensure that the development has an acceptable impact upon the visual amenity of the surrounding area.

Consequently, condition 3 is reasonable and necessary in its current form to protect the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Removing the condition would be in conflict with Policy ENV1 of the East Riding Local Plan Strategy Document (2016). This policy seeks, amongst other matters, to achieve high quality design through incorporating appropriate boundary treatments.

I acknowledge the other matters highlighted by the appellant including that a high school bus picks up pupils outside their property, trespassers, they did not agree to the planting, the development of the site has improved its appearance and that the planting scheme is too expensive to implement. I also note their comments regarding the objector and Highways did not object to the scheme.

In terms of the cost of the planting, the appellant has not provided any substantive evidence, for example a quote from a supplier, to demonstrate the cost of the planting. In addition, the appellant has not suggested an alternative, cheaper species to the [name] specified in the condition.

I recognise that the wall could be built without planning permission if it was reduced slightly in height. Nonetheless, the scheme before me requires planning permission. The other matters highlighted by the appellant do not outweigh the harm identified.

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole, the approach in the Framework, and all other material considerations, the appeal is dismissed.