Appeal 6004806

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for a 570mm high rendered brick wall with 7 No. 1.8m high rendered brick pillars at the front boundary with [address], with natural planting above lower walls between pillars at [site address] , [address], Westfield, Woking [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref. PLAN/2025/0760 and the plans submitted with it, subject to the condition that any plants which within a period of 5 years of this Decision, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species.

The main issue is the effect of the boundary wall on the appearance of the street scene and the character of the area.

The planning history of the site as outlined in the [name] on the application is a significant factor in my consideration of the appeal. A part retrospective application (Ref. PLAN/2023/0013) for the erection of 1.8m high fencing, pillars and sliding gate along the front boundary of [site address] was refused by the Council in April 2024. The application was dismissed at appeal in March 2025.

The application in this current appeal was submitted in September 2025 and seeks permission for the existing structure, but with the wooden panels between the pillars removed and the gaps infilled by the planting of laurel bushes to the rear of the lower walls. The application omits any reference to a sliding gate. I saw on my visit that this revised boundary treatment has now been carried out with the plants apparently healthy and already higher than the rendered pillars.

I have noted the Council’s view that this is an insufficient remedy for the harm originally caused and have also had regard to the related appeal decision. Appeal Decision Ref. 6004806 However, whilst I agree that the boundary wall as built with the infill panels was harmfully out of keeping with this part of [address], I consider that it is the alterations and extensions to the host dwelling permitted by the 2001 permissions that are the greater incongruity.

With its three large and dominant front dormer windows and white rendering, [site address] draws the eye and in my view is perceived negatively given its street scene context of more traditional brick faced dwellings and with lower roof profiles. I acknowledge that there are a couple or so similarly designed dwellings in this part of the road, but their dormers are smaller and the external brickwork has a far lesser visual impact than the white painted render of the appeal property.

Taking the appearance of the altered [site address] into account, the inclusion of panels between the pillars and the modest depth of the front garden combined to result in a boundary that compounded the adverse effect of the extended building, but in my view the wall was not the main cause of harm to this part of the road.

I therefore consider that the effect of panel removals together with the ‘soft’ landscaping of the laurel hedge comprises an acceptable front boundary to [site address] . Indeed, the white render of the pillars provides visual coherence with the dwelling. And paradoxically the alternative of a boundary of reduced height, different materials and less enclosure would present an incongruous contrast with the host building and comprise a ‘weak’ frontage, including enabling views that would increase the prominence of the whole site including the front elevation of the house.

On the other hand, I find that the existing wall with the evergreen planting between the pillars is a significant improvement that does not form ‘an alien and harsh frontage’ which erodes the established rhythm of this part of [address]. The altered boundary does not therefore harmfully conflict with Policies CS21 & CS24 of the [name] 2012; the Council’s SPDs of 2015 & 2022, or with Government policy in Section 12: ’[name] in the National Planning Policy Framework 2024.

I shall therefore allow the appeal subject to a standard landscaping condition for the replacement of laurel hedge bushes as may become necessary. The Officer’s Report includes a negative critique as to the efficacy of the condition, but the Council will be aware this could equally apply to all instances of this frequently used condition imposed on development proposals. Nor do I see any advantage or incentive for the appellant or future occupiers to remove the planting, as a mature laurel hedge between the piers provides all year-round screening.