Appeal 3363874

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for demolition of boundary fence and its replacement with a brick wall, together with the erection of a canopy at the front at [site address] , in accordance with the terms of application, Ref 19331/24 and the plans submitted with it.

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 description on the application form, which is set out in the banner heading above, is lengthy and includes words which are not a description of development. I have therefore based the description with the appeal decision on the more concise description on the Council’s decision notice and the appellant’s appeal form.

The Council consider the front canopy element of the development to be acceptable. From my own observations of the appeal scheme, I have no reason to form a different view. This recommendation therefore focuses on the brick wall element of the development, which I saw on my site visit is already in situ.

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

The appeal property is a detached dwelling occupying a corner plot on a cul-de-sac. The surrounding area comprises similar brick built properties, which are commonly separated from the pavement by grass verges, hedges, driveways or low-profile brick walls. Despite the prevailing open character of frontages, there are Appeal Planning Officer APP/N4205/D/25/3363874 some limited examples of taller brick boundaries in the street scene as well as brick side elevations of garages sited close to the highway. The section of Riefield that the appeal dwelling sits side on to has a verdant character, largely owing to the grass verge and dense vegetation which lines the opposite side of the street.

[address] Extensions Supplementary Planning Document (2012) (SPD) seeks to avoid new walls and fences on open plan estates. However, the photographic evidence before me shows that a dwarf wall and a close boarded fence previously lined the side boundary of the appeal site with the street and that the side and rear of this corner plot were not previously open.

The wall is only slightly higher than the fence it has replaced. The upper sections include black fence panel inserts which are set back from the brick parapets helping to break up the mass. Furthermore, the close proximity and elevated level of the host dwelling relative to the street help to reduce the perception of the wall’s scale. The visual blending of the wall against the side elevation of the dwelling is further aided by the use of matching brickwork in line with Paragraph 5.13 of the SPD guidance. Moreover, as the wall reduces in height and given its limited extent next to the plot frontage, it retains a suitable openness to the plot. These factors, taken together with the verdancy of the land opposite which softens the overall vista down the street, assimilate the development into its immediate surroundings.

For the above reasons, the development has an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. In that regard, it complies with Policy OA5 of the [name] (2011) and Policy JP-P1 of the [name] for Everyone Joint Development Plan (2024) which, amongst other things, seek development which respects and acknowledges the character and identity of the locality in terms of design, siting, size, scale and materials used and to ensure that development conserves and enhances the character of the existing physical environment.

Save for the canopy which was not in place at the time of my visit, the development is already substantively complete. Given my findings that the development is acceptable in character and appearance terms, planning permission is granted in accordance with the plans submitted with the application and no further conditions are necessary in this instance.

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

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed. [planning inspector] INSPECTOR