Appeal 6004087

The appeal is allowed and the planning permission Ref 25/06070/VCDN for Variation of condition 3 (materials) attached to 24/06293/FUL (Householder application for replacement of the existing dilapidated retaining wall and fence that runs between the plot and the adjacent public footpath) to allow for construction of the structural elements of the retaining boundary wall to commence prior to approval of the external surfaces at [site address] granted on 25 July 2025 by Buckinghamshire Council, is varied by deleting condition 3 and substituting it for the following

The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed in accordance with the materials and finishes specified in the ‘Appeal Statement of Case’ dated January 2026, namely Charles & [name]® Classic fence panels ([name]), aluminium posts (Black), and [name] ‘[name] monocouche render ([name]).

My attention has been drawn to the draft Buckinghamshire Council Local Plan (covering the plan period to 2045), which I understand was published for Regulation 18 public consultation between 17 September 2025 and 29 October

The Council has provided a draft list of Development Management Policies. However, it has advised that these are for information only, as the draft policies carry no weight at this stage in the preparation of the Local Plan. Accordingly, I have afforded the draft policies no weight in the determination of this appeal.

Planning permission was granted in August 20241 for the replacement of the existing retaining wall and fence due to the previous wall and fence being in a poor state. In the application form, the appellant set out that ‘the retaining wall will be built of non-clad concrete (stepoc) blocks. A fence panel of either composite or wooden material will be positioned on top of the wall’. However, the [name] associated with this approval refers to the restriction on the use of external materials. It was recommended that matching brick-base and timber fence were used to match the existing materials of the existing boundary treatment and dwelling in order to secure a sympathetic appearance for the local area. Accordingly, a condition was attached to submit details of the materials to be used for the external surfaces to the Council for their approval. However, at the time, this did not restrict them to the use of brick and timber.

Subsequent applications to discharge the materials condition proposed alternative materials, including concrete blockwork and composite fencing, but these were refused2 on the basis that the Council found these materials to be inappropriate.

A later application to vary the materials condition3 was approved in July 2025 in order to allow the structure of the replacement wall to be constructed prior to the approval of the external materials. This was approved and the materials condition, condition 3, introduced a restriction requiring the use of brick and timber for the boundary treatment, for the reason to secure a satisfactory external appearance.

Accordingly, the appeal before me now relates specifically to this varied materials condition, which limits the choice of external finishes to brick and timber. The appellant wishes to amend it to the following wording: ‘Unless otherwise first agreed in writing, the proposed fence panels shall: comprise Charles & [name]® [name] in [name] finish; the proposed posts shall comprise Charles & [name] in Black finish; and the retaining wall shall be finished in [name] ‘[name] monocouche render in Graphite grey’.

Therefore, the main issue is whether Condition 3 meets the tests set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) (the Framework) and Planning Practice Guidance (PPG), in particular whether it is necessary, relevant to the development permitted and reasonable, and the effect of substituting the condition on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site at [site address] comprises an L-shaped, brick-built detached dwelling and its garden. A public footpath runs along the south-western and north-western boundaries. The garden sits at a higher level than the adjacent path, with a steep embankment at the rear sloping down towards it. The dwelling itself has a staggered form that reflects the natural topography of the site. During my site visit, I observed that the main structural works for the replacement retaining wall had 1 Application ref 24/06293/FUL 2 Application Refs. 24/08092/ADRC and PL/25/2507/CONDA 3 Application Ref. 25/06070/VCDN been completed and that the footpath had reopened. A temporary orange mesh fence has been installed to address safety concerns arising from the change in levels.

Whilst brick and timber, along with hedgerows, appear to be the predominant boundary treatments in the area, I also observed examples of boundaries constructed from concrete block and render, including at the rear of [address]. In addition, there is a wide variety of fencing styles present, including close-board, decorative, palisade, panel, picket, trellis and wire fencing, constructed from materials such as composite, metal and timber, in natural, painted and stained finishes. I also noted that a number of dwellings within the locality are finished in render.

The current wording of the condition, which restricts finishing materials to ‘timber fencing and a brick finish’, prevents proper consideration of alternative materials, despite the appellant’s original intention to construct the wall using unclad concrete (Stepoc) blocks with either composite or timber fencing above. As drafted, the condition effectively limits the development to a narrow range of materials, irrespective of whether other options could achieve an equally acceptable outcome. As set out above, the character of [address] is not defined by any consistent or uniform approach to boundary treatments and does not justify such a prescriptive approach.

I therefore find that the disputed element of Condition 3 is overly restrictive and unjustified. It is neither necessary nor reasonable to restrict the materials in this way, particularly where the Council was aware of the appellant’s preferred alternatives. The condition prevents a balanced assessment of materials that may be equally appropriate in both visual and functional terms, and as such fails to meet the tests set out in the Framework and the PPG.

Furthermore, the presence of rendered finishes and the observed diversity in both boundary treatments and fencing materials indicate that the proposed materials would not be inherently inappropriate or incongruous within the area. Whilst each case must be assessed on its own merits, the other examples reinforce my view that the preferred materials would be capable of achieving a satisfactory appearance in this location. Therefore, I am satisfied that the condition could be substituted without harming the character and appearance of the area.

The Council has stated that it is not the intention of this appeal to formally determine the acceptability of the proposed alternative materials. I also recognise that this matter has been considered at length through earlier applications, which explored the range of materials that could be used on the site, noting that, subsequent to the submission of this appeal, application PL/25/2507/CONDA to discharge the relevant planning condition was refused. Nevertheless, within the scope of this appeal, it is necessary to assess whether the condition, as presently worded, is reasonable. As the decision-maker, I am able to amend the wording of the condition where necessary to ensure that they meet the relevant tests.

In doing so, I am satisfied that the substituted condition can reasonably specify the appellant’s preferred materials, which I find acceptable. However, I have omitted the appellant’s suggested wording ‘unless otherwise agreed in writing’, as this would allow for potentially significant changes to the materials without formally varying the condition, which would be the more appropriate mechanism. I have also amended the wording of the condition in the interests of clarity and precision.

Accordingly, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed and that Condition 3 should be deleted and substituted to include reference to the materials proposed by the appellant. The substituted condition would still enable the approved development to be carried out using appropriate materials that would preserve the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore accord with the objectives of Policies CP9, DM32 and DM35 of the Wycombe District Local Plan (adopted 2019), which collectively seek development to secure a high standard of design, contribute to a strong sense of place, and reinforce and enhance the prevailing character and function of the area.

Therefore, in conclusion, I allow the appeal, deleting condition 3, and substituting it for the condition set out above.