Appeal 6001783

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.

I have removed the term ‘retrospective’ from the description, as this does not describe a form of development. Accordingly, I have assessed the proposal on the basis of what is shown on the submitted plans and described in the application.

A dispute exists between the Council and the appellant regarding the extent of the ground level changes and the resulting height of the boundary treatment to the rear. I have taken these differing positions into account, having regard to the submitted plans and what was observed during the site visit.

The main issues of the appeal are the effect of the development on; • the character and appearance of the area; and • the living conditions of neighbouring properties 18 and [address] (No’s 18 and 22), with particular regard to light and outlook; and • highway safety.

[site address] is a mid-terrace property with a generous driveway and rear garden. The driveway is separated from neighbouring properties by a brick wall topped with artificial hedging. To the rear, the garden rises away from the dwelling, creating a noticeable upward gradient towards its end. The topography results in boundary treatments along the row appearing at differing heights when viewed from adjoining properties. At the appeal site, the boundary treatment consists of a brick wall surmounted by timber fencing, trellis, and sections of artificial hedging. No. 22 features fencing along the shared boundary that is broadly aligned with the height as set out on the plans. [name] 18 and 22 also contain outbuildings positioned towards the rear of their gardens.

During my site visit, the artificial nature of the hedging was clearly apparent. Its uniform colour, texture and finish contrasted noticeably with the natural planting present on nearby neighbouring properties. Even when viewed from a greater distance, the structure remained visually prominent and did not assimilate into the wider street scene in the way that natural hedging typically would.

The appellant refers to neighbouring properties, including No’s 1, 14 and 16 Selbourne, which incorporate walls and natural hedgerows of a comparable or greater height than the appeal proposal. They also note that there were previously trees and hedging at the appeal site which were of a greater height than the proposed boundary treatment to the front. They argue that these neighbouring examples, demonstrate a prevailing pattern of boundary treatments within the street. However, natural hedging is generally not subject to planning control, and its softer, organic form and appearance allows it to integrate more readily into the streetscape. As such, these examples are not directly comparable to the artificial structure subject to this appeal.

With regard to the fencing and artificial hedging to the rear of the property, whilst it is not visible from the public realm, it is highly prominent when viewed from neighbouring gardens and rear-facing rooms. The use of artificial hedging, combined with the overall height created by the hedging and the timber trellis, results in a visually dominant and incongruous feature. Its appearance is out of keeping with the more traditional boundary treatments in the surrounding gardens and therefore has an unduly intrusive presence viewed from neighbouring properties.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. Consequently, the proposal is contrary to Policy LP26 of the Local Plan (2018) (LP) which, amongst other matters, requires development to respect the local character of the area, ensuring it makes a positive architectural and urban design contribution to its context and location.

The site ground levels slope upward toward the end. Although this context explains some variation in boundary heights, the proposed fencing and artificial hedging would nevertheless sit higher than other treatments in the immediate vicinity. [name] 22, the existing rear fence already aligns broadly with the height of the proposed boundary treatment, except it does not mirror the same stepping up towards the end of the garden, which is seen to the appeal proposal. Given that fencing of a comparable height is already positioned adjacent to the windows serving the rear projection at No 22, the outlook from those rooms would not materially differ from the pre-existing situation.

With regard to No. 18, the proposal would add noticeable height above the existing brick boundary wall. However, the French doors in the rear projection of No. 18 are set well in from the shared boundary, as is the outbuilding which occupies the far end of the garden. These factors reduce the visual presence of the fence when experienced from the main habitable spaces. As a result, the development is unlikely to materially worsen the outlook currently experienced from rear facing windows. However, I do consider the excessive height of the fencing and artificial hedging to give rise to a harmful sense of enclosure when the occupants of No 18 are using their rear garden.

Regarding sunlight, No. 18 lies to the south of the appeal dwelling. As a result, the proposed development is unlikely to materially increase overshadowing within their rear garden or reduce the level of light received. No. 22’s rear garden, however, is positioned to the north of the appeal site and is therefore already likely to experience some overshadowing from the existing boundary fence. Although the appeal development would sit above No. 22’s fencing towards the rear of the garden, the current site conditions include a timber outbuilding with a small canopy attached to its roof. On this basis, any additional overshadowing arising from the proposed boundary fence would be limited.

I conclude, the proposal would harm the outlook experienced by the occupants of No 18 when using their rear garden. Consequently, the proposal is contrary to Policy 26 of the LP which, amongst other matters, requires that development does not result in adverse impacts upon the amenity of neighbouring occupiers in relation to outlook.

The appellant indicates a willingness to reduce the height of the front boundary treatment within the visibility splays, whether by setting the wall back, using lower or more transparent fencing, or trimming the hedging to 0.6 metres. However, no revised plans or drawings have been submitted to demonstrate any of these options or to show how adequate sightlines would be achieved or any resultant changes to the effect upon the character and appearance of the area of prominent elements of the scheme. In the absence of such details, it would not be appropriate to rely on a condition to secure an alternative boundary arrangement, as this would introduce uncertainty and could materially alter the nature of the development.

I therefore must assess the appeal on the basis of the scheme before me. Upon this basis, the appeal scheme would impinge upon sight lines and visibility, and increase the potential for highway user conflict, so would be prejudicial to highway safety.

Accordingly, the proposal fails to accord with Policy 22 of the LP and Policy T6 of the London Plan (2021) which, amongst other matters, seeks to provide an efficient transport network and supports transport projects where they improve safety.

While the Council has referred to a conflict with Policy T6.1 of the London Plan in its decision notice, as this mainly deals with new residential parking provision and does directly refer to highway safety, it is less relevant than the policies I have set out above.

The appeal submission included evidence that could be regarded as containing some potentially libellous and defamatory accusations, which were returned. The appellant was given the opportunity to provide an amended version of this evidence, however, no response was received to this request. From what is before me I can see no substantiating evidence to demonstrate the appeal scheme and this form of development is necessary upon health and safety grounds, and so this matter attracts limited weight.

I have found that the appeal proposal would not significantly affect the level of light received by No’s 18 and 22, or the outlook of No 22. These are neutral matters in the planning balance, and they do not outweigh the harm to; the outlook experienced by the occupiers of No 18 from within their rear garden, the character and appearance of the area and highway safety.

The development conflicts with the development plan read as a whole. There are no material considerations advanced, including the policies of the Framework, which indicate the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I 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.