Appeal 6004597

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a boundary brick wall with metal railings at [site address] , Bow [site address] , Bowden, Trafford [postcode] in accordance with the terms of application Ref 117243/HHA/25, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby granted relates only to the details of development as shown on the submitted plans dated September 2025: BGR/09/25/02, BGR/09/25/012 and the associated 1:1250 site location plan.

Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, within 6 months of the date of this decision a scheme of landscaping works shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include details of the boundary hedge planting along the site boundaries, any replacement trees and details of existing trees and hedgerows on the land to be retained. The scheme shall include details of the species, sizes, spacing, protection and a programme of implementation.

All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the approval of development and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of development die, are removed or become seriously damaged shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size or species.

The wall and railings have been constructed and therefore I am considering this appeal retrospectively.

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

The appeal property is a detached house located on the junction of Bow [site address] and [address]. This is typical of the character of Bow [site address] which is defined by large detached residential properties which are enclosed by either high hedgerows or prominent fencing, examples of which include panelled fencing, brick pillars and railings. The boundary treatments to properties here generate a heavy sense of enclosure to the character of the area.

The boundary treatment at the appeal property consists of a shallow grey brick boundary wall, prominent brick pillars at regular intervals with railings to a height of approximately 1.85m. The boundary treatment stretches around the frontage of the property with both Bow [site address] and [address], affording it a prominent position when viewed from the street.

The Council’s SPD ‘A Guide for [address] Extensions and Alterations’ (SPD4) sets out the importance of designing boundary treatments so as to not harm the residential street scene. This is particularly relevant to height, design and positioning. The scale and design of the boundary treatment at the appeal property is reflective of the wider character of the street scene, particularly when viewed against the boundary treatment of other properties along Bow [site address] . The design makes use of brick pillars and railings which are a relatively common feature for boundary treatments in the locality and are consistent with the ambitions of SPD4.

The appeal site is located on the corner of Bow [site address] and [address] which affords the site more prominence on the street scene. SPD4 recognises that corner plots may require boundary treatments to be of a sufficient height to provide screening to private garden areas. I noted from my site visit that most of the appellants private outdoor amenity space either adjoins or is visibly apparent from the public highway. Consequently, the role of a sympathetic boundary treatment to provide appropriate screening to the appellant’s private outdoor amenity space would be of clear benefit here.

I acknowledge the Council’s concerns around the prominence and positioning of the boundary treatment and its implications around the protection of trees within and adjoining the appeal site. I also note the Council’s comments in relation to a landscaping condition. The submitted plans indicate the planting of a laurel hedge along the inside of the wall. I observed on my site visit that some planting in this area, and across the site, has already taken place. I have no doubt that, over time, this soft landscaping will become visible through, and potentially above, the wall’s railings. This would have the effect of softening the overall appearance of the development and further contributing to the character of the surrounding area. However, there is only limited information before me in respect of this planting. Consequently, a condition would be required to secure this planting and ensure that it was replaced if it became necessary. I return to this matter subsequently.

Overall, I conclude that the development has an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, in accordance with Policy JP-P1 of the ‘Places for Everyone’ Joint Development Plan. This policy, in summary, promotes development that respects and acknowledges the character and identity of the location in terms of design, siting, size, scale and materials used.

I note a range of issues which have been raised by third parties relating to the installation of the new boundary treatment. These include concerns over adherence to the conditions of previous planning approvals and unauthorised works on the site, the loss of biodiversity and encroachment of the wall towards the public footpath. However, there is no dispute between the Council and appellant in these regards and there is no evidence before me to substantiate these issues. Therefore, these matters have not altered my conclusion in the main issue.

I have considered the appeal on its own individual circumstances based on the scheme before me. The issues regarding the handling or interpretation of the application by the Council are not matters for me to consider here.

The Council has provided a list of conditions that it suggests should be imposed in the eventuality that the appeal were to be allowed. I have assessed those with reference to the advice in the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance. I have amended the wording of some without altering their fundamental aims.

In the interests of certainty, it is necessary to specify the plans that the development should be carried out in accordance with. Conditions 2 and 3 have been imposed to ensure that a suitable landscaping scheme is submitted, approved and implemented in the interests of the character and appearance of the surrounding area. There is a strict timetable for compliance because permission is being granted retrospectively, and it is not possible to use a negatively worded condition to secure the approval and implementation of landscaping before the development takes place.

For the reasons given above, and taking into account all the relevant matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.