Appeal 3345002

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

I saw on my site visit that the development has already commenced and appears to have been completed. Planning permission is therefore sought on a retrospective basis and I have made my recommendation on that basis.

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

The site is located on [address], in an area known as the Tudor Estate Character Area. [address] mostly has semi-detached dwellings which are setback from the street behind front gardens. The front boundary treatments are predominantly formed of low brick walls of narrow depth which are unobtrusive in their appearance. The low brick walls are more often of a dark red colour which generally matches the colour of the brickwork at the ground floor of the dwellings that they are associated with. They are often combined with hedges and planting, which alongside the front gardens, grass verges and trees in the street, contribute to a spacious and verdant suburban character.

The property has a wide frontage, and the boundary wall spans the full length of the front boundary. Its height and thickness appear noticeably bulkier and more dominant than the generally more modest and streamlined walls on the https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate - APP/Z5630/D/24/3345002 street. This is emphasised by the tall, deep side profile of the brick columns. The materials including lighter red brickwork and beige stone copings are not complementary to the host dwelling or the wider street scene. The development does not therefore reflect the form, details or materials of typical front boundary treatments along [address] and is an incongruous feature in the street.

I have had regard to the examples provided of other front boundary treatments in the area, some of which I saw for myself on my site visit. The timber fence at [address] opposite the site is a more natural material and combined with a low brick wall and hedge, it is better integrated within the street scene. The high brick wall on the corner of Park Road is itself a substantial feature. However, it is set away from [address] and its materials match those of its host dwelling. The other examples put forward by the appellant are generally not as bulky in depth or as substantial in width as the appeal proposal and are limited in number. They do not reflect the prevailing character and appearance of front boundaries on [address].

I conclude, the development has a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. In that regard, it conflicts with policies CS8 (Character, Design and Heritage) and DM10 ([name] for [name] (including [name])) of the Royal Borough of [site address] [name] (2012) which require good design, seek to ensure developments recognise distinctive local features and character and respect, maintain or enhance the most essential elements identified as contributing to the character and local distinctiveness of the street.

For the same reasons, the development also conflicts with Policy Guidance 44 (Walls and Enclosures) of the Royal Borough of [site address] Residential Design Supplementary Planning Document (2013) which states that walls and enclosures should respect the form and detail of other enclosures in the street so that new walls or enclosures do not appear out of character.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.