Appeal 6005167

The appeal is dismissed.

A draft National Planning Policy Framework ‘Plan-making and national decision-making policies’ was issued by the Government for consultation on 16 December 2025 (Consultation Draft Framework) and with a deadline for comments by 10 March 2026. No final decisions upon the consultation have yet been announced. Therefore, and for this reason, I afford the Consultation Draft Framework limited weight as a material planning consideration. In respect of the main issue, I have afforded full weight to the published National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (as amended) (the Framework) and the adopted development plan for the area from the point of view of determining this appeal. In this case, the Consultation Draft Framework does not alter or outweigh my conclusion below regarding the appeal.

The appeal is made retrospectively for development already constructed.

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

The appeal property is a detached dwelling located on a corner plot with [address] and [address] and where the appealed boundary is situated along the side of the property abutting the back of the pavement to [address].

The appellant, in the submitted block plan, describes it as a replacement wall.

The surrounding area is characterised by a mix of bungalows and two-storey, brick-built houses with double pitched roofs, and where front amenity spaces have room Appeal Decision Appeal Ref: 6005167 for parking. The immediate area has a verdant appearance. These characteristics add positively and distinctively to the area’s character and appearance.

While the frontages to dwellings have a more open appearance, the side boundaries to the properties along [address] include a more solid appearance. On my site visit, I was able to note such boundary treatment on the same side of [address] as the appeal site, though with wooden fencing of a lesser height than the appeal proposal and with trimmed hedging behind.

Moreover, the appellant has pointed out boundary treatment in the immediate vicinity of a similar height to the appeal proposal, including brick walls on [address]. Other quoted examples are on [address] and [address]. However, such walls tend to be more subdued in colour than the appeal proposal and also are not generally facing directly the fronts of dwellings, while others are softened by adjoining grass verges. In any event, I have determined the appeal upon its individual merits, bearing in mind its highly visible location.

I appreciate that there has been a fence along the same road frontage as the appeal proposal for several years. However, more latterly it had a different appearance to the current appeal proposal, with a brick base and pillars with infilled wooden curved top panels. It was not as tall as the appeal wall. The appeal proposal, with a solid masonry wall of approximately 2 metres high, has a more austere and harsh appearance. It faces directly the front elevations of houses directly opposite.

I appreciate the requirement of the appellant to provide privacy and security to the side and rear garden of the host property, but I consider that this could be achieved in a less stark way, possibly incorporating the use of hedging and planting so as to create a more verdant, softer appearance, more in keeping with the character and appearance of the area.

Therefore, I conclude that the development conflicts with policies SD1 and SD2 of the [site address] Local Plan Strategy 2017 (LPS) which require, amongst other things, that development creates a high quality environment which reflects the character and design of the area.

I do not consider LPS policy PG6 to be particularly relevant in that it is concerned with the principles relating to the general type of development appropriate in rural areas.

The development also conflicts with policies GEN1 and HOU11 of the [site address] Site Allocations Development Policies Document 2022, which require development to be of good design in keeping with the character and appearance of the area in which it is set. Moreover, it does not comply with policy H4 of the Wybunbury Combined Parishes Neighbourhood Plan 2020 in so far as it requires boundaries facing the street to be ‘low rise’, nor with chapter 12 of the Framework which requires development to be consistent with the character and appearance of the area. Appeal Decision Appeal Ref: 6005167

There are no material planning considerations that indicate that the application should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.