Appeal 6003175

The appeal is dismissed.

The development has already taken place, so the proposal is retrospective.

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

The appeal site occupies a corner position at the junction of [address] and [address]. The Garforth Neighbourhood Plan Character Assessment describes low front walls supplemented by planting as a prevailing characteristic of the area, and this is consistent with my own observations.

The development comprises a rendered wall of approximately 1.2 to 1.4 metres in height along the [address] frontage, together with a short return section of close-boarded timber fencing.

The rendered wall forms a solid and visually prominent enclosure immediately on the back edge of the footway. Its painted rendered finish is stark and visually assertive when seen in the context of the low brick walls and hedging in the immediate vicinity. Staining marks below the coping stones further draws attention to the wall and reinforces its incongruous appearance. The overall effect is a visually discordant and intrusive development that detracts from the established character and appearance of the area.

The appellant contends that the previously existing rendered garage established an appropriate design reference for the current wall, and also refers to rendered finishes on some properties. However, my understanding is that the former garage was set within the plot, rather than forming a roadside boundary treatment. Similarly, the external walls of dwellings within garden plots do not have the same visual effect as a rendered boundary wall directly addressing the public realm. They therefore do not provide a meaningful precedent for the appeal development.

Reference is also made to other high boundaries within the wider estate. However, those I observed in the immediate vicinity comprised hedges or timber fencing, which are less visually assertive than a render finish. None establishes a clear or persuasive precedent for a rendered wall of this height and position.

I have taken into account that a rendered wall up to 1 metre in height might fall within permitted development (PD). However, such a wall would sit noticeably lower in the streetscene and maintain a largely open aspect that accords with the established pattern of enclosure. By contrast, the additional height of the appeal wall is clearly perceptible in this exposed corner location and fundamentally changes the relationship between the boundary and the public realm. Its rendered finish significantly accentuates its bulk and prominence, creating an enclosed and defensive appearance. In this context, the increase above the PD threshold is not trivial. Accordingly, while the existence of a theoretical PD fall-back is a material consideration, it does not outweigh the harm arising from the scheme as built

The short section of timber fencing adjacent to the dwelling does not undermine the openness of the streetscene and its scale and materials are consistent with similar internal garden fencing found within the estate. This element is therefore acceptable, but as it forms part of the overall development, I am unable to issue a split decision.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the rendered wall harms the character and appearance of the surrounding area, contrary to Policy P10 of the Leeds City Council Core Strategy (amended 2019), and saved Policies N25 and GP5 of the Leeds City Council Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006). These policies require new development, including boundary treatments, to be well designed, appropriate to their context, and to contribute positively to local character.

The appellant refers to personal circumstances, including the needs of young children and concerns regarding the safety of a family dog. However, such private benefits attract limited weight and are not sufficient to outweigh the harm I have identified and the conflict with the development plan as a whole. There may also be alternative means of achieving similar objectives in a less harmful manner.

The appellant’s concerns regarding the Council’s communication during the enforcement and application process are noted. However, such matters fall outside the scope of this appeal, which must be determined solely on its planning merits.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole, and there are no material considerations which indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.