Appeal 3335872

The appeal is dismissed.

The application form states the development was completed on the 18th April

During my visit, I noted that the boundary wall was complete and that it accords with the plans before me. I have therefore considered the appeal on the basis that the development has already taken place.

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

The frontages along [address] are characterised by low brick walls and planting. This creates an open interface between the public and private realm which positively contributes to the verdant suburban character of the street scene.

The replacement wall is taller than its predecessor. It has six piers in quick succession, these are significantly taller than others along [address]. Consequently, they appear stark and imposing amongst the characteristic planting and low boundary treatments along the road.

The appellant refers to other properties in [address] that have pillars and walls that are over one metre in height. Where there are brick walls, these maintain a typical domestic height, and brick piers are mainly used sparingly either side of a vehicular entrance. In contrast, the appeal site has multiple tall piers punctuating the boundary wall, which appear incongruous in this setting.

The appellant states that the previous wall was considered a public hazard. Whilst this may have been the case, this does not justify the design of the development sought. Whilst the brickwork will likely weather and planting could soften the appearance of the wall, this is unlikely to negate the inherent harm arising from the height of the pillars.

Reference is made to the main body of the wall being less than one metre in height and thereby qualifying for permitted development. Consideration of the lawfulness of the development is not part of my consideration in this appeal, and it is the pillars that are harmful in this case in any event.

An example of a similar scheme in Walton on Thames is cited, but it does not refer to development on this road nor have the details of the case been fully provided. In any event, each scheme must be considered and determined on its individual merits.

For the reasons identified above, I conclude that the development has had an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. The development is therefore contrary to Policies CS8 and CS17 of the [name] 2011, Policy DM2 of the Development Management Plan 2015 and the [name] 2012 insofar as they seek for development to preserve or enhance the street scene.

I recognise that the wall would not harm the living conditions of adjacent neighbours. However, the absence of harm is a neutral factor in the balance.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan when read as a whole and the other considerations before me, do not indicate that I should make a decision other than in accordance with the development plan. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.