Appeal 3293467

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development in the heading above has been taken from the planning application form. [name] of the appeal form a different wording has been entered, but as the parties have not provided written confirmation that a revised description of development has been agreed I have used the one given on the original application.

The Council’s report advises that the appeal development has been partially carried out, and at the appeal site visit it was evident that rendered walls with piers have been constructed to the front, rear and south-eastern side boundaries. Gates have also been installed on the front and side boundary, and the rear boundary appears to have infill panels above blockwork, between piers. However, for the avoidance of doubt, I have determined this appeal on the basis of the details shown on the submitted plans, rather than the development as built.

The proposed materials listed on the planning application form do not include railings, nor are they specified on the submitted elevations. The grounds of appeal include reference to the renewal of close boarded fence panels, although their position is not identified. Nevertheless, the Council’s report confirms that the proposed wall fronting [site address] would include railings, and I have considered the appeal on the same basis.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the street scene and local area.

The appeal property is a detached dwelling prominently located at the junction of [site address] and [address]. Within [site address] , front gardens tend to be modest in depth and open to provide parking. On the northern side of [address], dwellings are set back behind deeper front gardens, but where enclosed, boundaries tend to be in the form of low fencing, walls or planting.

In this context, although the side boundary wall would be a notable feature in the street scene, it would be set back from [address] behind the footway and a deep verge, and would not be dissimilar to an ivy-clad wall on the opposite corner of the entrance to [site address] . However, the proposal would introduce a means of enclosure in front of the dwelling that would be almost 2m in height, and would front onto both roads at the corner. Whilst the use of railings may not appear as solid as the remainder of the wall fronting [address], the enclosure would nevertheless appear as an overly dominant and incongruous feature that would detract from the street scene.

This adverse visual impact would be exacerbated by the extent of the wall, which would enclose a wide front garden. Rather than ensure visual continuity as suggested by the appellant, the proposal would appear as a stark contrast to the more open and low-key front gardens of the dwellings nearby in [site address] and [address]. I do not consider that this effect would be mitigated by the choice of materials or the preservation of the adjacent grass verge. Although the appellant notes that there are no designated heritage assets in the vicinity, design quality should be sought in all contexts.

I appreciate the appellant’s aim to revive and refresh the original boundary treatment, but as proposed, the design and height would not appear to be founded on a thorough understanding of, and positive response to, the local context. This would be contrary to Core Strategy1(CS) Policy CSTP22.

I therefore conclude that as a result of its siting, appearance, scale and design, the proposed wall and railings forward of the dwelling fronting [site address] and part of [address] would detract from the character and appearance of the street scene and local area. This would be contrary to the design aims of the National Planning Policy Framework and CS Policy CSTP22; and with CS Policy PMD2, as supported by the [name] Guide2, which requires development to contribute positively to the character of the area and to the townscape, and for the design and detailing of elements such as walls to be robust, engaging and to contribute positively to the public realm.

For the above reasons, I conclude that this appeal should be dismissed.