Appeal 3309212

The appeal is dismissed.

The boundary wall subject of the appeal has already been erected and is substantially complete. The appellant, in effect, wishes to retain that built, and if needed, to clad it in timber or to render and paint it. I shall proceed on this basis.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The appeal property, a semi-detached dwelling, is situated at the junction of [address] and [address]. A block wall varying in height has been erected at the back of the footway on both road frontages. A wooden gate allows vehicular access in and out of the site to and from [address].

Judging from images on [name], the front and side gardens were previously lawned, with some shrubs and plants, and the plot enclosed with a low brick wall. This means of enclosure is common to other residential properties sited along both road frontages either side. On the other side of [address], neatly arranged railed fencing provides the means of enclosure.

This is a prominent corner which previously exuded a sense of openness, providing a welcome measure of visual relief in this largely built-up area. The sense of openness has been effectively destroyed by the erection of the wall, to the detriment of the street scene. I do not consider that rendering or cladding would assist in acceptably reducing the harm caused.

The wall’s crude appearance is such as if it had been designed to enclose a compound. Indeed, I saw that the previously grassed side and front gardens had been largely replaced by hard-standing, and many motor vehicles were parked upon it, far more than could be normally expected to serve a household.

I note the appellant’s references to other examples of similar means of enclosure in the locality. I am not aware of the full circumstances of the other cases referred to or whether they were lawfully erected. Notwithstanding this, they do not appear to me to be visually appealing and do not provide a good reason for accentuating visual harm in this case.

The appellant also says that the wall subject of appeal was erected ‘to screen the garden and provide security’. I have already alluded to the fact that the areas enclosed no longer have the appearance of a garden in the usual sense of the term. That the appellant desires security should not in my view take priority over maintaining the previous openness and pleasant appearance of this corner. I note too that an area of rear garden appears to provide privacy and security.

I therefore conclude that the erection of the wall has harmed the character and appearance of the locality. This is contrary to those provisions of policies BCS21 of the Bristol Local Plan, [name] (2011) and policy DM26 of the Bristol Local Plan - Site Allocations and Development Management Policies (2014) requiring development to contribute positively to an area’s character and identity, creating or reinforcing local distinctiveness.

I have noted the references to other development plan policies but those to which I have referred are considered the most relevant having regard to the particular circumstances of the case.

All other matters raised in the representations have been considered but none outweigh those considerations that led me to my conclusions.