Appeal 6001529

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development above is taken from the decision notice albeit with the omission of the words ‘part retrospective’ given that these do not form an act of development. The description used in the application form included superfluous text outlining the rationale for the development which again does not form an act of development.

Notwithstanding the above, both of the main parties have been asked during the appeal proceedings to confirm the development to which the appeal relates, noting that the Council’s decision notice also referred to a boundary wall (rather than just post heights).

The appellant has confirmed that the description of development used in the decision notice is accurate to the development proposed and that the proposal relates to the regularisation of the wall and pillars fronting [address]. Whilst the Council refer to the retention of the wall at the [name] elevation being implicitly part of the appeal proposal, this does not reflect the description of the proposed works or the plans before me.

It is not for me, under a section 78 appeal, to determine whether or not the wall fronting [name] is lawful, for example through compliance with the General Permitted Development Order. It is open to the appellant to apply to the Council for a separate determination under sections 191/192 of the Act regardless of the outcome of this appeal. Given that the wall fronting [name] is not part of the appeal proposal, I have not assessed it further.

The evidence before me details the planning history relating to the appeal site. I noted during my site visit that development has already commenced on site. However, the proposal before me is for an alternative form of development including reduced wall post heights. I have therefore assessed the proposal based on the plans before me.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • the character and appearance of the area; and, • the living conditions of the occupiers of 11 [name], with particular regard to outlook.

The appeal site is within a predominantly residential area comprised mainly of two storey terraced properties. The appeal property forms an end terrace with its front elevation facing towards [address], perpendicular to the other properties within the terrace it forms part of, which face towards [name]. [name] is pedestrianised with properties on either side separated by a grassed area with a central avenue of trees. The property on the opposite side to the appeal site is a similar arrangement to the appeal property also facing towards [address].

Dwellings in the immediately surrounding area are typically set back from the highway with relatively open frontages, some used for the parking of vehicles. Boundary treatments with the highway vary but are typically low walls, fences and hedgerows. The dwelling on the opposite side of [name] has a higher wall forming its boundary but there is dispute between the main parties as to whether this has the benefit of planning permission.

The appellant has submitted photographs of various boundary treatments in the surrounding area which serves to demonstrate the variety of forms. Nevertheless, most of these are not within the immediate street scene which the appeal site is experienced and none of the examples submitted appear to be directly comparable to the appeal proposal before me.

The appeal property is unusual in its positioning within the site leading to garden areas on three sides of the dwelling. I understand that previously, the property was partially enclosed by a close boarded fence, and that the boundary treatment now in place is a replacement of this.

Even with the proposed reduction in the height of the wall posts and the proposed render finish, the boundary treatment would be a stark and incongruous form of development in the street scene. Rather than providing definition to the site boundary, the proposal would dominate the street scene at a prominent location owing to the appeal sites corner plot arrangement. The significant difference between the height of the lower wall and the wall posts (again acknowledging the intention for their height to be reduced), would only serve to emphasise the excessive scale of the proposal.

Based on the above the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore be contrary to Policy CS22 of the Hertsmere Local Plan Core Strategy (CS) (2013) which requires development to be of high quality design which ensures the creation of attractive places. It would also be contrary to Policy SADM30 of the Hertsmere Local Plan Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Plan (SADMPP) (2016) which requires development proposals to make a positive contribution to the built environment.

Policy SADM30 of the SADMPP states that in order to achieve a high quality design, development must have limited impact on the amenity of its neighbours including in terms of outlook. Although not explicitly referring to living conditions, Policy CS22 of the CS does require development proposals to take advantage of opportunities to improve the quality of an area.

As above, the appeal proposal before me relates to the boundary treatment along [address]. [address] frontage is some distance from the shared boundary between the appeal site and 11 [name] (No 11). Given the intervening boundary treatment which is not part of the appeal proposal before me, the occupiers of No 11 would have limited visibility of the appeal proposal. I therefore do not find that the wall posts or the proposed railings and gates would be so dominating to the outlook for the occupiers of No 11 that they would amount to harm to their living conditions.

On this basis, the proposal would have an acceptable effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 11, with particular regard to outlook. I have therefore identified no conflict arising with Policy CS22 of the CS or Policy SADM30 of the SADMPP in relation to this main issue.

I note the intention for additional planting which would have a beneficial effect on the biodiversity within the appeal site. The proposal would also benefit the occupiers of the appeal site by providing greater levels of privacy. However, the benefits associated with the proposal are not sufficient to outweigh the harm which I have identified above.

The Council has not raised concerns in relation to highway safety. I see no reason to take a different view on this matter. Nevertheless, a lack of harm in this respect does not specifically weigh in favour of the proposal.

The appellant has indicated dissatisfaction with the Council’s handling of the application, specifically in relation to discussions between Council officers. However, this is not a matter I can consider through a S78 appeal in which I have considered the planning merits before me.

[name] have found that the effect on neighbouring living conditions would be acceptable, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore conflict with the development plan when read as a whole and there are no material considerations which indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. I therefore conclude that the appeal is dismissed.