Appeal 6001526

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of boundary wall, gates, piers and railings at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2025/00910/MINFHO, subject to the following condition:

The development hereby permitted is as shown on drawing numbers A25- 003-302A and PP-13991512v1

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.

An application for costs was made by [name] against Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council. This application is subject of a separate decision.

The dwelling on the site was granted planning permission in 2022. Following this a discharge of conditions (DOC) application was granted which included details of boundary treatments. There is a matter of dispute between the main parties as to whether the forward-facing boundary treatments should have been discharged under that application. Be this as it may, the planning application in question for this scheme was determined by the Council and as a result is being considered at appeal. The boundary treatments have been implemented and therefore the scheme is being considered on a retrospective basis.

The appeal site lies within the Green Belt, and the Council has concluded that the development as built would accord with the relevant policies in that it would not be inappropriate therein or have a harmful effect on the openness of the Green Belt. I have no reason to disagree with these conclusions and have not considered the matter further.

With the above in mind, the main issues are the effect of the proposal on a) the character and appearance of the area; b) whether or not flood risk would be increased in the area in terms of surface water runoff.

The appeal site is a large, detached dwelling sat within a substantial plot with parking provision to the front. The new gates enclose this area. Surrounding dwellings mirror this arrangement with instances of different boundary treatments of varying scales, siting and material choices. These features contribute to a mixed and contrasting appearance to the street scene.

In this context, the scale and composition of the wall, gates and other supplementary works do not appear jarring or out of place. The total height of the structure in totality is also mitigated by the land levels as they slope upwards towards the host building. The tone of the brick and its bonding, with matching capping, complements the materials palette of the house. The use of horizontal plank infill panels in a dark colour tone does the same and allows views through to the landscaped garden and the dwelling.

Resultantly, the development does not result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area and does not conflict with P15 of the Solihull Local Plan 2013 which amongst other things, seeks to ensure that developments are of a high-quality design and standard.

The second reason for refusal references both the risk of surface water run off and being in close proximity to both public and private drains. The appellant has submitted an additional supporting document which I appreciate the Council has not had sight of due to the procedure for householder appeals. However, this is the only way the appellant can look to address the refusal reason and the information amounts to confirmative commentary rather than anything fundamentally new to the development at the site as a whole.

The overall drainage strategy for the site has been discharged and approved by the Council. Notwithstanding this, the evidence suggests that the driveway is constructed of permeable paving and any exceedance runoff more than what the strategy is capable of taking would run on to [address] and down towards the fields at the end of the road. This would not be a significant amount due to the minimal land take and overall narrowness of the wall. It would also be no different to the existing situation with this and other dwellings. In the absence of any sufficiently compelling evidence to the contrary, I have no reason to believe, taking the above into account, that the development would lead to an increase in flood risk locally with specific regard to surface water runoff.

I have seen no compelling evidence to demonstrate how the wall crosses public and private drains. In the event of the latter, this would be for affected parties to resolve. The appellant has conducted surveys of the drainage which has clarified that the walling has not detrimentally affected the system. Again, in the absence of anything to the contrary, I have no reason to believe that harm has resulted as part of the development in the location it has been erected.

Resultantly, the development does not conflict with Policy P11 of the Solihull Local Plan 2013 which amongst other things, seeks to ensure that developments have appropriate drainage measures in place.

The effect of the wall and gates on highway safety was not a reason for the refusal of planning permission in the first instance. Having regard to the evidence and my observations on site, I see no reason to disagree. The scheme has been submitted retrospectively and whilst concerns were raised that it would allow other residents to do the same, the appellant has sought to regularise the development. The seeking of retrospective planning permission, whilst not ideal in some cases, means that it is neither unacceptable nor acceptable, nor does not set a precedent for other people to do the same. It is assessed in regard to the same relevant policies of the development plan and site-specific matters.

I have not included a time limit or materials conditions due to the retrospective nature of the scheme and my findings. I have referred to the approved plans for enforcement purposes. The Council has recommended that the gates are to open inwards throughout the lifetime of the development. The plans show this. The condition is not therefore necessary.

For the reasons given above, the scheme complies with the development plan and there is nothing sufficiently weighty to indicate a decision other than in accordance. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be allowed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted, subject to the condition set out above.