Appeal 6003026

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development as set out in the application form contains superfluous text and elements which do not specifically relate to acts of development. In these circumstances, in relation to the banner heading of my decision, I have deleted elements of the description which addresses the purpose and merits of the case, along with any detail and narrative that does not relate to acts of development.

On my visit I observed that the proposed wall was already built, which is reflected in the plans before me. I have dealt with the appeal on the basis that planning permission is being sought for the development as set out in the banner heading, in accordance with the drawings submitted.

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

[address] is a suburban residential area, predominantly comprising two storey detached residential properties, set back from the road with a consistent building line and recognisable regular pattern of development. In particular, properties feature open frontages with minimal built enclosures. This creates a positive spacious and verdant character and appearance of the area. Where walls are present within the streetscene, these relate to the side return of plots, rather than the frontage.

The appeal plot is set on a corner of [address], whereby its adjacent neighbour is set facing away from the appeal property with a side wall set adjacent to the appeal plot. The appeal proposal has introduced a brick wall at the front of the plot abutting the adjacent pavement approximately half the width of the plot.

Whilst the wall is not tall and views of the property are still achievable, nevertheless the presence of a solid frontage boundary appears distinctly out of keeping with the open and verdant frontages within the wider area. It would not appear as a continuation of the neighbouring adjacent wall as this is a side wall rather than on the frontage of this property.

It has been highlighted that hedgerow is present in other plots within the area which enclose the front of plots. However, hedgerow positively contributes to the prevailing verdant character and lack of built enclosure in the frontages, whereas the brick wall would appear incongruous.

I understand that previously a hedge which had died was situated at the front of the property, and the appellant contends that the soil is of a poor quality making other plants likely to fail. However, this does not reduce the harm identified to the character and appearance of the area through the introduction of an incongruous built feature within the streetscene.

Examples of walls at Nos 6, 16 and 28 have been brought to my attention. However, these walls relate to the side return of the plot rather than the frontage and is therefore not comparable to the appeal proposal. The post and rail fence at No 30 has also been brought to my attention. Whilst situated to the front of the property, it does not result in the same level of built enclosure as the proposed development. These examples are therefore not directly comparable to the appeal proposal.

As such, the proposal would result in considerable harm to the character and appearance of the area. It therefore conflicts with Policy DP26 of the Mid Sussex District Plan (2018). This policy, amongst other matters, seeks to ensure development is of a high-quality design that contributes positively to the public realm.

The appellant contends that the wall allows for more cars to be kept on the drive and off the road. I have no evidence before me showing that there is an issue with on-street parking within the area. This therefore carries very limited weight in favour of the proposal.

Whilst the appellant contends that the National Planning Policy Framework encourages positive and creative approaches to development and for Council’s to plan for change over time, this does not justify the harm arising from the proposal.

The appellant has raised concerns over the Council’s handling of the planning application. However, this is a matter that lies outside the scope of my determination as it does not affect the planning merits of the proposal.

I note that a letter of support and no objections was received from neighbours during the planning application. However, the lack of objections does not equate to a lack of harm.

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. Therefore, for the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.