Appeal 6001087

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development was revised by the local planning authority (LPA) during the application determination period. This revised description was used by the appellant on the appeal form, although no explicit proof of the appellant’s agreement to the revision has been provided. Nevertheless, I consider that the revised description is a more accurate description of the development sought, and I have determined the appeal on this basis.

The application form states the development commenced in May 2025. I saw during my site visit that a wall has been erected along the front and side of the appeal site. Part of the wall that has been erected along the front of the site appears to accord with the proposed plans before me, specifically drawing no. MAD-525-01. I note that the appeal proposal involves removing a section of the erected wall at the front and side that does not accord with the proposed plans. Regardless of some of the proposed development already being in situ, I have made my decision on the basis of the appeal proposal before me.

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

The appeal site is situated on the south side of [site address] , a busy dual carriageway. This section of [site address] features a row of well-maintained terraced homes set back from the road, with front gardens and consistent boundary treatments. There is a change in site levels from north to south, meaning that the homes and gardens occupy a raised position overlooking [site address] . A petrol station abuts the terrace to the east.

The high degree of uniformity evident throughout the terrace, in terms of the design of the houses, the front gardens and the boundary treatments, contributes positively towards the character and appearance of the area. The character and appearance of the southern side of [site address] is distinct from the northern side which has a less consistent design and pattern of development and is severed by the dual carriageway.

The appeal site sits at the western end of the terrace, on the corner of [site address] and [address]. The proposal is for the construction of a 2.9 metre high brick wall along the northern edge of the property boundary (fronting [site address] ) and part of the western edge of the property boundary (fronting [address]). The wall along the western edge would be constructed up to an existing driveway, with a small dogleg element extending into the site. As noted above, the wall along the northern edge is already in situ.

The location of the wall would maintain separation between the boundary treatment and the front elevation of the property, which is a consistent feature throughout the rest of the terrace. However, the height of the wall is excessive compared to the pattern of consistent lower boundary treatments along the rest of the terrace on the southern side of [site address] . It is a significant oppressive feature which causes harm to the character and appearance of the area. While there are examples of brick walls on the northern side of [site address] , they are appreciably lower and less imposing than the wall at the appeal site and are part of a section of the road that has a different character and appearance to the southern side.

The choice of a lighter type of brick also harms the character and appearance for the area, as it further amplifies the distinction with the rest of the terrace which has a consistent use of darker brick.

Although the homes on the southern side occupy a raised position due to the topography of the land, the height of the wall still obscures views of the appeal site and thereby erodes its contribution to the character and appearance of the area in terms of its visual presence.

Policy BNE1 of the Medway Local Plan (2003) (the Local Plan) requires the design of development to be appropriate in relation to the character, appearance and functioning of the built and natural environment.

The National Planning Policy Framework (2024) (the Framework) section 12 seeks to achieve well-designed places that are, amongst other things, visually attractive, sympathetic to local character, safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

The proposal is harmful to the character and appearance of the area and conflicts with Local Plan Policy BNE1. This conflict should be given significant weight in this appeal. The proposal would also conflict with section 12 of the Framework.

The proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area and would be inconsistent with the Development Plan considered as a whole. It would also be inconsistent with the Framework. There are no material considerations sufficient to outweigh the concerns identified.

For these reasons, the appeal should be dismissed.