Appeal 6000661

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development above is taken from the application form, omitting the parts of the proposed works which do not describe acts of development. This matches the description of development used on the Council’s decision notice.

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

No 39 is a two-storey detached dwelling towards the southern end of [address]. The existing frontage boundary treatment is open with a low stone wall to the front, and low blockwork walls to the sides. [address] is a residential street, laid out in a regular pattern of detached plots, set back from the road edge. Front gardens are typically open, are often gently sloping or terraced, and contain parking behind low front walls and planting. While there is considerable variation in property styles, in general, the low-level front boundary treatments with properties set back in their plots, results in an open, unenclosed and spacious character to the area.

The proposal comprises two elements. The proposed wall and gates would enclose the front and southern side of the front garden, with a height of approximately 1.8m, and would constitute painted rendered piers with aluminium panels set between them. An outbuilding is also proposed close to the front boundary wall, to be clad in wood-effect panelling. It would be set on levelled ground in front of a retaining wall, and would be clearly visible above the new front boundary wall.

While there are a variety of materials in the street, and contemporary materials are not without precedent, the height of the new boundary and its full enclosure of the plot frontage would contrast with the predominantly low-level boundaries and open front gardens in the street scene. While boundary treatments are varied in the area and taller boundaries are present, they are generally restricted to side boundaries or those enclosing rear gardens; contain visually permeable elements such as narrow railings; or form part of retaining structures for terracing and are therefore set back from the road edge. The proposed tall boundary wall and its wide metal gates would therefore be out of keeping with the prevailing character of the area.

The proposed outbuilding would also introduce uncharacteristic and visually prominent built form close to the road edge. Visible above the new front boundary, this would result in further erosion in the open frontage character of the street, appearing as an isolated built feature out of scale with the low-level features at the front of properties. Again, while outbuildings are present on [address], they are typically set well-back from the road edge and do not interrupt the open character of the street frontage.

As a result of these differences, the proposal as a whole would be conspicuous and discordant in the street scene. [name] can understand the appellant’s desire to screen and gain privacy from the adjacent commercial and vehicle storage area, the appeal proposal would not be the only way to achieve this. Moreover, screening the adjoining commercial uses with development that is in itself harmful would not result in an overall enhancement to the character of the area.

Taking all of the above into account, I therefore conclude that the proposed development would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area. This would conflict with Policy PP27 of the Poole Local Plan (2018). Amongst other matters, this policy requires a good standard of design which reflects or enhances local patterns of development in terms of height, scale, and visual impact.

While there is a tall front boundary to part of the frontage of No 41, the evidence indicates that this does not benefit from planning permission. Moreover, as it doesn’t fully enclose the plot, it does not provide a clear justification for the development proposed.

I acknowledge the appellant’s concerns regarding the security and safety of their property adjacent to the road, particularly regarding the operation of the neighbouring commercial unit. I also understand the importance of providing a safe environment for their children, which is a primary concern. However, I have not been presented with any substantive evidence that a safe environment could not be achieved with a boundary treatment that is more typical of the street scene.

Similarly, there are incidences of crime in Poole. The appellant’s desire to secure the family home to reduce the risk of burglary, trespass, and antisocial behaviour is therefore understandable. However, there is no substantive evidence before me that such issues are a significant problem in this particular area. Moreover, while I appreciate the appellant’s concerns, it has not been demonstrated that there are no alternatives that could deliver similar benefits without the harm that I have found.

There is no dispute that the proposal would retain sufficient parking provision in accordance with the Council’s parking standards. There would also be no harm to the living conditions, privacy, or amenity of neighbouring occupiers. However, as these are ordinary requirements of policy, they are neutral matters that do not weigh in favour of allowing the appeal.

The use of a recycled shipping container as the basis for the outbuilding and the incorporation of solar panels within its roof would support sustainable development through renewable energy generation and recycling of materials. However, in a small-scale scheme, these modest benefits would not outweigh the harm to the character and appearance of the area.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above the appeal should therefore be dismissed.