Appeal 3356022

The appeal is dismissed.

During the course of the appeal the National Planning Policy Framework December 2024 was revised. There are no substantive changes relevant to the main issue in the appeal before me.

I have taken the description in the heading above from the application form, removing the reference to retention, as this does not constitute an act of development.

At the time of my site visit, fencing and a covered outdoor area had already been constructed. However, my decision is based on the drawings provided.

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

The appeal site forms a semi-detached dwelling on a large corner plot within the St. Helier Estate Area of Special Local Character (ASLC). The Sutton Local Plan 2016-2031 (2018) (the Local Plan) describes the character of the ASLC as having a spacious quality due to extensive areas of open spaces with the smaller open spaces within the estate giving the ASLC its special character.

The appeal site forms one of a number of dwellings arranged around a central area of open green space. The primarily low boundary treatments contribute to the sense of spaciousness, benefiting the character and appearance of the area. The few examples of taller boundary fences within the area appear prominent within the street scene and reduce openness. Further, I do not know the circumstances under which they were constructed or their status with regard to planning permission. Whilst there are some taller hedges bounding the properties, these are visually softer than fencing and less intrusive.

The fence and covered area would protrude significantly above the surrounding boundary treatments giving them a prominent appearance within the street scene. The substantial nature of the appeal development would emphasise its discordance with the prevailing diminutive character of neighbouring boundary treatments, appearing contextually alien and unsympathetic. The solid fencing would appear imposing and visually harsh when viewed from the public realm, disrupting and diminishing the spaciousness of the street scene and harming the character and appearance of the area including this part of the ASLC.

I acknowledge that there may be no specific policies that restrict the height of boundary treatments. Nevertheless, this does not negate the proposal’s conflict with the relevant provisions of Policies 28 and 30 of the Local Plan. When read together, these require new development to respect local context, respond to local character, make a positive contribution to the street frontage, street scene and/or public realm, and conserve and, where practicable, enhance those elements which contribute to the ASLC.

For these reasons, therefore, the development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area, and the ASLC. Consequently, in this regard, it would conflict with the relevant provisions of Policies 28 and 30 of the Local Plan.

The appeal proposal may not cause harm to surrounding residents with regards to noise and disturbance, outlook, privacy, daylight or sunlight. Nor would it harm trees or have an unacceptable impact on highway safety. Nevertheless, these are neutral points and not benefits of the scheme and so they do not alter my overall

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.