Appeal 6002325

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development provided on the application form is imprecise and lacks clarity. I have therefore adopted the wording from the Council’s decision notice, omitting the term “part retrospective” from the banner heading as this is not a description of development. As part of the development has already been carried out, the appeal is part retrospective in nature. I have determined the appeal based on the submitted plans, which show a replacement side and rear boundary wall with brick pillars and infill timber panels along with raising of the ground level of the garden.

The main issues are: • the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area. • the effect of the development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers on [address] with regard to privacy and outlook.

The appeal site lies at the end of a residential cul‐de‐sac comprising detached two‐storey dwellings. The eastern boundary of the site directly adjoins a public footpath which connects [address] to [address]. The boundary treatment runs alongside this footpath and is clearly visible to its users along the length of the route.

The appeal boundary treatment runs parallel to the adjoining public footpath for a considerable length and, due to the raised garden ground levels behind it, presents as a tall and continuous built form when experienced by pedestrians. This results in a strong sense of enclosure that materially alters the character of the route, most notably where the boundary reaches its greatest height adjacent to the verge.

Compared with boundary treatments associated with neighbouring dwellings on [address], the appeal boundary treatment appears significantly more prominent. Its relative height and continuous form are out of keeping with the prevailing pattern of boundary treatments in the immediate area.

It is acknowledged that residential boundary treatments occur along public footpaths in the wider area. However, the examples relied upon by the appellant are either outside the immediate context of the appeal site or differ materially in form, generally comprising lower walls with fencing above. As such, they are not directly comparable. The appeal boundary, by contrast, presents as a more substantial and continuous built feature alongside the public footpath.

Although one of the examples provided by the appellant runs alongside the same public footpath, it is characterised by a change in boundary height along its length, stepping down to a lower wall with fencing above adjacent to the public footpath. As such, it does not present as a continuous tall built form along the route. The appeal boundary, by contrast, maintains a consistently greater apparent height and proximity to the footpath, giving rise to a materially different visual effect.

The appellant states that the increased height of the boundary treatment is required to address safety and security concerns. However, this increase in height arises from the raising of garden ground levels within the garden rather than from the boundary treatment itself. If safety and security were the primary concern, these could have been addressed through an increase in the boundary treatment height alone, without altering the garden ground levels. However, the effect on character and appearance is most apparent when experienced from the public realm and do not justify a boundary treatment of this scale and visual prominence, irrespective of internal garden ground levels. In this context, while safety and security considerations carry some weight, they do not justify a boundary treatment of this scale and visual prominence when experienced from the public footpath.

Taken as a whole, the proposal fails to achieve a high‐quality boundary treatment appropriate to its prominent public setting. By reason of its height, length, mass and its relationship with the raised garden ground levels, the development appears visually dominant and incongruous, eroding the character and appearance of the footpath and its surroundings and contributing to an unacceptably strong sense of enclosure. The proposal therefore conflicts with the aims of Policy QP3 of the Borough Local Plan 2013 - 2033 Version for [name] for Council Meeting 8 February 2022 (LP) and the guidance in the Borough Wide Design Guide 25 June 2020, which seek to create safe, attractive and well‐designed places. Accordingly, I conclude that the proposal causes harm to the character and appearance of the area, and this harm weighs significantly against the appeal.

The appeal site adjoins the rear garden boundaries of Nos. 123, 125 and [address], whose gardens provide private outdoor amenity space. In relation to the neighbouring gardens on [address], the boundary treatment reads as a continuous and substantial built feature along the shared rear boundary, having an overbearing and enclosed effect on the neighbouring gardens, materially affecting outlook and reducing their sense of openness and amenity.

The appellant suggests that overlooking would be limited and that any impacts could be mitigated through fencing or planting. However, the raising of ground levels within the appeal site increases the potential for overlooking into the rear gardens of neighbouring properties, resulting in a degree of harm to their privacy. In addition, the height and mass of the boundary treatment, when experienced in close proximity to neighbouring gardens, give rise to an overbearing form of development. While additional landscaping may soften the appearance of the boundary treatment over time, it would not adequately mitigate either the loss of privacy arising from the raised ground levels or the immediate and enduring impacts of the boundary treatment’s scale.

Taken as a whole, the proposal would harm the living conditions of occupiers of the adjoining dwellings on [address], with regard to privacy and outlook. It therefore conflicts with Policy QP3 of the LP which seeks to ensure no unacceptable effect on the amenities enjoyed by the occupants of adjoining properties.

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. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.