Appeal 3295014

The appeal is dismissed.

The application sought permission for a number of extensions to the dwelling. However, the matter in contention between the parties relates to the addition of wall and gates to the front boundary. I will therefor focus my attention on this area only.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the local area.

The appeal site is a detached two storey house located on the outskirts of Haxby. The area feathers out from the town with larger detached houses flanking the west side of the main road in a more spacious grain of development contributing to a semi-rural setting. Wide pavements and grass verges separate the road from the front boundary of these private houses. Spur roads lead off to more modern housing developments.

Boundary treatments in the main along this part of the road here consists primarily of natural hedgerows with evidence of low brick walls, or brick walls and manicured hedging above. These all reflect the traditional character of the local area at this point that transitions out from the more densely populated core of the town towards the feathered fringes.

The introduction of a wide and high expanse of front boundary wall with uncharacteristic brick pillars together with infill panels of metal railings that are not typically recognised here, and solid timber gates would appear incongruous and visually obtrusive in this otherwise verdant context. In addition, the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document '[name] and Alterations' recognises the contribution of boundary treatments to the character of an area. Overall, the design and materials to be used would detract from the character of the local area, and would not lead to good placemaking

Even though I viewed a more contemporary style timber fence and gates on the opposite site to the appeal site, this was associated with more modern housing, and does not compare or specifically relate to the houses on the opposite side.

I appreciate this means of enclosure may offer security for the appellant’s family. However, that is not to say that other forms of more appropriate boundary enclosure that offers acceptable security to them, could not be found.

Therefore, to conclude on this main issue, the proposed boundary treatment would conflict with the placemaking and design aims of policies D1 and D11 of the City of York Publication Draft Local Plan 2018, policies GP1 and H7 of the Development Control Local Plan 2005 and advice contained within the [address] Extensions and Alterations 2012. In addition, it would conflict with the National Planning Policy Guidance that seeks to achieve well designed places.

Given the harmful effect of the proposed development by virtue of the boundary enclosure and gates on the character and appearance of the local area, it would lead to conflict with the development plan taken as a whole. There are no material considerations that indicate the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given, I conclude that the appeal should not succeed.