Appeal 6004918

The appeal is dismissed.

At the time of my site visit, some construction work had taken place. Regardless of what has been constructed to date, I have determined this appeal based on the plans before me and any works carried out not in accordance with those plans would be a matter between the Council and appellant.

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

The character of [address] is of dwellings set back from the highway with open front gardens or parking areas. Front boundary treatments are typically low red brick walls, occasionally with hedges behind. Few dwellings have gates, relying instead on simple openings. Narrow verges, street trees, occasional boundary hedges and open front gardens contribute to a street scene with a verdant and spacious feel. The existing layout plan for the appeal site shows a low brick wall (0.45m high) and open frontage that would likely have made a positive contribution to the character of the area.

The appeal proposal encloses the front garden and parking area with a high boundary structure comprising a wall approximately 0.96m high and pillars approximately 1.65m high. A metal gate is proposed across the site access. The scale of the proposal is incongruous in the area and appears as a high visual barrier, limiting visibility into the front garden and resulting in a loss of spaciousness in the street scene which is an important element of the character and appearance of the area.

I acknowledge that front boundary walls on [address] vary in height. During my site visit, I observed several examples of brick walls that were higher than typical within the street. However, in those limited cases, the individual site circumstances were different and, in particular, front gardens generally remained visible and those boundary treatments did not form visual barriers. This is in marked contrast with the scheme before me. Ultimately, the existence of those other examples has not led me to an alternative conclusion on this main issue.

The appellant contends that Policy CS5 of the Epsom and [name], 2007 (the [name]), relates only to protecting and enhancing heritage assets and therefore is not wholly applicable. However, the section of the policy that requires development to reinforce local distinctiveness and complement the attractive characteristics of the Borough, relates to all development. This is consistent with policies in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) that require decisions to ensure that developments are sympathetic to local character.

The appellant considers that [address] has two distinct and autonomous characteristics, as a result of the presence of detached houses on the appeal side and semi-detached houses on the opposite side. They also argue that the length of the front garden of the dwelling is important and is sufficient that the appeal site would not appear cramped or hemmed in. However, whether the dwellings are detached or semi-detached has a limited influence on the character of [address] overall. In respect of the length of the garden, I have set out above that the boundary treatment restricts visibility across the front garden resulting in a loss of spaciousness in the street scene.

Overall, I conclude that the proposal would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area in conflict with Policy CS5 of the [name] and Policies DM9 and DM10 of the Epsom and Ewell Borough Council Development Management [name], 2015. These policies, in summary, require development to reinforce local distinctiveness and character, with essential elements contributing to the character, maintained or enhanced.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed.