Appeal 3338218

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of the development as set out in the planning application was in narrative form. I consider that the description in the Council’s decision notice as set out in the banner heading above is more concise and is an accurate description of the proposal. I have determined the appeal on that basis.

I consider that the main issue in this case is its effect on the character and appearance of the area.

[site address] is a two storey end of terrace house set at an angle at the junction of [address] and [address] in an established residential area. It has a relatively large side and rear garden due to its location on a corner.

The relevant policies in this case include policies BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: [name] – [name] (November 2012) and DMHB11, DMHB12 and DMHD1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: [name] – Development Management Policies (January 2020) (the local plan). These relate to the design quality of new development and its impact on the public realm. The materials and height of any front boundary must be in keeping with the character of the area.

There is an existing rendered brick wall approximately 1.85m high along part of the north boundary of the site adjacent to the road which was constructed following vehicle damage to the previous wall. The proposal is to reduce the height of this by approximately 75mm and remove the render.

I consider that the height and materials of this wall along the boundary with [address] are out of keeping with the character and appearance of the surrounding area. I understand the appellant’s concerns regarding the safety of her family due to the exposure on this corner site. However, the site is large compared to the majority of the surrounding properties and there is still a good sized rear garden which appears to be secure since it is already enclosed by a high brick wall and fencing. Although the removal of the rendering would improve the appearance of the wall, I consider that it would still be too high in the context of the surrounding low walls and hedges.

The predominant character of the surrounding area is one where boundaries with the road are typically marked by low walls and hedges which contribute to an attractive townscape. There are very few properties in the immediate surroundings which are similarly sited on corners. An exception to this is No. 96 at the other end of the terrace, which has a similarly sized plot to the side and rear. The boundary here with [address] comprises a high timber fence which appears to have been in place for some time, and together with a garage provides enclosure for the rear garden. This is not wholly in keeping with the surroundings and although it appears less intrusive than the wall at the appeal site, I consider that it does not weigh in favour of the appeal.

I conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to local plan policies BE1, DMHB11, DMHB12 and DMHD1.

For the reasons given above, the appeal is dismissed.