Appeal 6000177

The appeal site is within a predominantly residential area, and there is a pavement between it and the road to the front of the site that is subject to the national speed limit. During my site visit, I observed fairly frequent vehicle movements on the section of road passing the site, and I have no reason to doubt that this frequency is typical.

A tall boundary wall between the appeal site and the adjacent property at number [address] (no. 66) greatly restricts intervisibility between most of the driveway on the site and the road and pavement to the northwest of it. The development would not materially change this situation. However, even if the main body of the wall is the same height as the previous wall in the location, the pillars and the intervening boarding are significantly taller. As such, and notwithstanding the existing hedge to the rear of the wall, and the narrow gaps between the slatted boarding, the appeal scheme has significantly reduced intervisibility between users of the driveway and much of the road and pavement to the southeast of it. By doing so, the development has greatly and unacceptably increased the risk of highway safety-related conflict between users of this driveway and users of the adjacent road and pavement. In this respect, the development conflicts with paragraph 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Even if a condition were to be imposed to secure the lowering of the hedgerow to the rear of the development, this would not prevent the previously identified harm. Furthermore, and although I do not doubt that the previous wall had fallen into disrepair, this does not justify a taller replacement wall that reduces highway safety in the area.

Even if there have been no highway safety-related incidents resulting from the use of the drive since the development was undertaken, given the relatively short time it has been present, this does not lead me away from my previous findings.

For these reasons, the development has caused harm to highway safety, and it is contrary to the related policies cited in the decision notice.

The appeal site is within a mainly residential area, where the houses are typically separated from the road they address by a short driveway/front garden. Parts of the front boundaries of these properties are often open to allow convenient access to driveways, and other parts typically comprise low boundary walls and fencing. Nearby street trees together with shrubbery and/or hedges in many of the front gardens help to soften the built form within the area, and contribute positively to its fairly open, spacious, and ‘green’ character and appearance.

Although the front boundary wall on the appeal site is a little taller than others typically found nearby, it is significantly lower than both the hedge it is in front of and the brick wall on the boundary between the appeal site and no. 66. It is also lower than some other nearby plants and shrubbery. As such, and because of the variety in the design, appearance, and height of nearby boundary walls and fences, the wall subject of this appeal is neither visually dominant nor incongruous in the local street-scene, and it has not harmfully reduced the verdancy or openness of the area.

Consequently, the development has not caused harm to the character and appearance of the area, and it accords with the related policies cited in the decision notice.

Even if the development has reduced water consumption and improved the living conditions of the occupiers of the property, the scale of the scheme means that any associated benefits are small.

My attention has been drawn to many other examples of properties in the nearby and wider areas that have a range of front boundary treatments. However, from the evidence before me, and in terms of its design, height, and/or site context, the appeal scheme is materially different from these other examples. As such, and even though some of these other schemes were allowed on appeal, they do not lead me away from my previous findings.

Although the appeal scheme has not caused harm to the character and appearance of the area, this is a neutral consideration. The development conflicts with the development plan as a whole, and nothing outweighs this.