Appeal 3359550

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.

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

The front boundaries of the first five dwellings on the western edge of [address] are uniform in that they are setback from the highway. This includes the appeal dwelling, sited immediately next to the [address] junction. After the junction, the setbacks of the front boundaries become less regular along this edge of the road. In contrast, all the boundaries of the dwellings on the eastern edge are set back from the highway because of the public pavement.

In design terms, there is a variety of front boundary treatments along this part of [address]. However, solid boundaries are low with hedging affording any height and dominance within the street scene. Boundary treatments and their setback from the highway cumulatively contribute positively to the character of the area, creating a sense of openness and spaciousness within the street scene along this part of [address].

The proposed development would vertically extend beyond the existing boundary wall and introduce railings atop, creating a structure of between about 1.9 and 2.1 metres in height facing [address]. The proposed development would have a substantial physical presence, creating a visually dominant structure within the street scene to the front boundary of the appeal dwelling. This would not only be at odds with the design of the boundary treatments within the street-scene but would also disrupt and subsequently diminish the sense of spaciousness and openness in this part of [address]. I do recognise that the use of railings would be somewhat less harmful than solid brick in that it would be visually permeable, though the cumulative impact of their height when considered alongside the solid brick piers would be such that the development as a whole would materially harm the character and appearance of the area.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would conflict with policy DM23 ([name] and [name]) of the adopted 2020 Chelmsford Local Plan 2013-2036. This policy, among other things, aims to ensure that development respects its contextual character and appearance including having regard to boundary treatments.

The appellant has identified developments believed to be similar in design terms. Though the boundary treatments at 48 and [address] are somewhat similar, these dwellings do not form part of the street scene that the host dwelling is located within due to their distance and obscurity from the appeal site’s context. Furthermore, [address] is of notably different character from [address], with a sense of enclosure afforded by structures and hedgerows directly adjacent to the highway. As such, I do not find that the developments identified represent a relevant basis for comparison. I have therefore afforded their existence limited weight in terms of my determination of this appeal.

I have considered the personal circumstances of the appellant and recognise their motivations for the proposed development. However, there is no evidence before me to suggest that the containment of pets on the premises could not be achieved through other measures and which would not cause the same degree of harm to the character and appearance of the area. In any event, the harm that would be caused to the character and appearance of the area would be significant. This is a matter of overriding concern and outweighs the personal circumstances outlined by the appellant.

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.