Appeal 6005186

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposed retaining wall has been built, and the original garden wall has been removed. It was observed during the site visit that the retaining wall aligns with the plans submitted as part of this appeal.

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

The appeal site is within an established residential area where houses are built relatively close to together creating a suburban character. The positioning of properties follows the undulating topography of the area and housing styles and street layouts vary from road to road.

The houses on [address] have a broadly similar pallet of materials including pale brick with red banding. The buildings are set back behind areas of verge and front garden, interspersed with driveways, and there is a lack of hard boundaries along the road edge. This softens the overall character of the road giving it a more open feel and creates a reasonably verdant appearance. The purposeful nature of this layout is emphasised by the removal of permitted development rights related to boundary treatments and means of enclosure when the properties were constructed (planning permission K1214/5).

The appeal site slopes up from the road, and the host dwelling is a detached 2 storey house orientated perpendicular to it and set back behind a rectangular verge. The verge has been variously planted over the years with a mix of hard and soft landscaping. However, it has always remained open continuing the space along the edges of the road which characterise [address].

The proposed development is the retention of the brick retaining wall along the pavement edge and a wooden fence to secure the back garden and subsume part of the verge leaving a smaller triangular section between the wall and fence.

Where the retaining wall and the proposed fence meet would be at the pavement edge adjacent to the parking space approved by previous permission P20/03927/[name] would mean that when entering [address] the proposed verge would not be visible and the conjoining of the fence and retaining wall would create a sold mass adjacent to the pavement edge thus having an enclosing and urbanising effect on the roads character and appearance.

It is recognised that what would remain of the verge would be visible when travelling out of [address], but this does not negate the break in the continuation of frontages and verges the wall and fence would create.

The proposal would, therefore, harm the character and appearance of the local area by enclosing the verge and introducing a level of development that is not in keeping with the existing hard and soft landscaping of [address].

It is acknowledged that permission P20/03927/F appears to include the movement of the original garden wall to the same line as the proposed fence, but the retaining wall did not form part of that approval. It is the combination of retaining wall and proposed fence which would harm the character and appearance of the area.

It is recognised that the proposed fence would improve the privacy and security of the host dwelling and that the original garden wall had to be demolished due to instability. However, there is nothing before me to substantively justify why the proposal is the only way privacy and security could be reinstated. Further that the landscaping of the remaining verge and facing materials could be secured by condition, does not alter the detrimental impact of that proposed.

Consequently, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. It would fail to comply with South Gloucestershire Local Plan: Core Strategy Policy CS1, and South Gloucestershire Local Plan: Policies, Sites and Places Plan Policies PSP1 and PSP38. These policies seek to ensure development respects its surroundings and the local distinctiveness of an area, amongst other things.

The Council has not found harm in relation to living conditions and highway safety. However, a lack of harm by definition cannot weigh for or against the proposal.

The Council has highlighted appeal APP/P0119/D/23/3323617 and the appellant has provided examples of different boundary treatments throughout the wider area. These have been noted but do not alter the findings of this decision.

For the reasons given above the appeal scheme would conflict with the development plan when read as a whole and there are no sufficiently weighted material considerations, including the Framework, that would indicate a decision otherwise. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.