Appeal 6001202

The appeal is dismissed.

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

Number 3 occupies a prominent position at the entrance to a residential housing estate, close to the junction of [address] and [address]. The house faces towards [address] whilst its side elevation and existing garden wall fronts [address], set in from it behind a grass verge which forms part of the curtilage of the property.

This part of the estate is characterised by large detached properties some with gardens enclosed by tall brick walls, like the appeal property. The overall character is of spacious development, with unobstructed views of the main façade of dwellings which contributes to the overall quality of the area.

The existing wall lines up with the side elevation, projecting rearwards in alignment with this where it appears set back from the main façade of [address] (No 5) beyond. The proposal would reposition the existing wall with one, the same height and materials, but set forward by around 2.5 metres. This would be positioned forward of No 5, interrupting views of this property particularly on entering the estate from [address]. The height of the wall in combination with its projection beyond the existing building would be visually intrusive in the streetscene, significantly narrowing the space between the pavement and built development. This would have the effect of enclosing the street which would be out of keeping with the area’s open character. This would be harmful to the overall quality of the area.

The existing wall presents as a blank and uninterrupted hard edge. The addition of landscaping around this would help to soften its appearance. However, this would not overcome the visual intrusion that would occur through the wall extending forward of the building line to No 5 at this main entrance to the estate.

Garden walls projecting beyond the building line such as proposed here are not uncharacteristic of the estate. There are examples where garden walls do obstruct views of neighbouring properties in a similar manner to how the appeal proposal would in respect of No 5. However, none of these occurrences are in such a prominent position at the entrance to the estate nor do they enclose the street as the appeal scheme would. In this way, they are less visually intrusive within the streetscene. As such, they do not justify the scheme before me.

A tree, originally planted as part of the approved landscaping scheme for the development, would fall within the area to be enclosed. However, I accept that should the scheme be approved with landscaping, harm arising from this could be mitigated.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore conflict with Policies DES1 and DES2 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2020 and Policy CPQ1 of the Thame Neighbourhood Plan 2025 which together require development that reflects and responds positively to the character of the local area, enhancing and complementing the surroundings.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.