Appeal 6001582

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.

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

The appeal site comprises a detached dwelling that is set back from the road by a generous front garden. Properties on Risegate are typically separated from the highway by hedges and / or low to medium height walls, often with intervening grass verges and soft landscaping. This gives the street an open and verdant quality that contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area.

The Rushcliffe Design Code (2025) ([name]) states that proposals to enclose gardens facing the public realm must off-set boundary treatments by one metre from the highway and be screened by soft landscaping.

Due to its siting directly along the pavement edge, and in the absence of any intervening planting, the appeal scheme would fail to accord with the [name] guidance. Indeed, as a result of its position, height and extent along the front of the appeal site, the proposal would have an enclosing and oppressive effect when viewed from within the street scene, which would be exacerbated by the narrow width of this stretch of pavement. [name] accept that the panel inserts would help to reduce the mass of the wall, the combined use of brick and timber would also represent an alien feature that, together with the factors described above, would appear discordant and would undermine the green and spacious character of this part of Risegate.

Consequently, the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore conflict with Policy 10 of the Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 1: [name] (2014) which requires that developments make a positive contribution to the public realm. It would also fail to accord with Policy 1 of the Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2: Land and Planning Policies (2019) that expects the scale, density, height, massing, layout and materials of proposals to be sympathetic to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. For the same reasons it would also conflict with the good design objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

I note the examples of other boundary treatments cited by the appellant. However, the fence that is located opposite the appeal site is shorter in length than the appeal proposal and benefits from a grass verge and established vegetation which help to soften its appearance. Similarly, while the neighbouring property and Nos 5 and [address] to the pavement edge, a degree of separation from the highway is maintained, with the intervening spaces incorporating soft landscaping. These examples therefore do not result in the same degree of visual dominance that would arise from the appeal scheme.

While it is reasonable to expect some form of garden enclosure, particularly where there is a difference in site levels and the occupiers include young children and pets, there is no compelling evidence before me to demonstrate that the appeal scheme would be the only means of achieving privacy, security and containment.

The fact that the boundary may only be visible to a limited number of neighbours and pedestrians does not negate the need for good design nor does it justify a scheme that would be harmful. Local support for the proposal and the removal of a hedge that may have become overgrown or unsightly also do not justify the harm that would arise to the character and appearance of the area.

For the above reasons, the proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. I therefore 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.