Appeal 6000808

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.

I observed on my site visit that the development has already commenced, though it has not been completed. Therefore, planning permission is sought on a partly retrospective basis and I have considered the appeal on that basis.

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

The appeal site comprises a detached dwelling located in a suburban residential area, mostly characterised by large dwellings which are of a traditional appearance. The front boundaries in the area typically feature hedges and trees which positively contribute to a verdant character. Where there are solid front boundary treatments, these are generally limited to discreet low-level brick walls, some with open metal railings, as well as timber fences. The walls and fences are mostly red and brown in colour, hence they have a neutral tone and traditional appearance which complements the soft landscaping. Overall, the modest walls and fences combined with the planting along the front boundaries contributes positively to the verdant character and appearance of the area and to a high-quality residential environment.

Due to its overall length and height, the proposed wall, piers and timber infill panels would combine to form an excessively solid and dominating enclosure to the front of the appeal property. This would harmfully contrast with the hedges and trees which generally form the front boundaries in the street scene, as well as the more discreet and low-level boundary walls and fences in the area. Furthermore, the white render would appear excessively bright and stark in comparison to the darker and more neutral colours of the walls and fences along this part of [address]. Consequently, the proposal would appear incongruous in its context and would be at odds with the verdant character and quality of the residential area.

The appellant refers to various walls, fences and gates in various finishes in the surrounding area. Photographs to that extent have been provided. However, I have not been provided with the addresses of these installations or the full planning background or details of the circumstances in which they were erected. Therefore, I cannot be sure if they represent a direct parallel to the appeal proposal. Moreover, on my site visit, none of these seemed to be in the same immediate street scene as the appeal site. In any case, my recommendation is based on the individual planning merits of the appeal and accordingly, none of the examples referred to by the appellant justify it. For these collective reasons, I therefore give them limited weight.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would be contrary to Policy CP3 of the Cannock Chase Local Plan (Part 1) (2014), which amongst other matters, requires that developments relate well to their surroundings including in terms of scale, appearance and materials, and should complement and enhance the character and appearance of the local area.

I am aware of the appellant’s concerns regarding a lack of opportunity for a compromise or any suggestions on how to improve the plans. However, whilst this may be frustrating for the appellant, these are not reasons to allow the appeal.

The proposed development would be contrary to the development plan and there are no other material considerations which would outweigh this conflict. Therefore, 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.