Appeal 6005477

The appeal is dismissed.

I have removed reference to retrospective from the description of development in the banner heading as it is not a form of development. While the planning application form confirms that the development has been completed, for the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the appeal on the basis of the plans submitted with the appeal.

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

[site address] is a residential street containing a variety of dwelling types and sizes. Frontage boundary treatments are typically low open metal fences or small walls with planting or fences above. Front boundary treatment is generally of a height and permeability that front elevations of properties are visible from the street. The boundary treatments contribute to a pleasant welcoming street scene with good natural surveillance.

The appeal property is a single storey mid terrace dwelling. The submitted plans indicate that the appeal property previously had a low open metal fence and would likely have contributed to the predominant open and welcoming character of the street.

The development is a front boundary wall with a wooden fence above that is significantly higher than is characteristic of the area. The boundary treatment obscures much of the front elevation and because of its height and materials is prominent and dominant within the street scene. This results in a “fortress” appearance, not characteristic of the area and contrary to guidance in the Wandsworth Local Plan Supplementary Planning Document, Housing (2016). The boundary treatment looks incongruous and is harmful to the character and appearance of the area.

The appellant considers that development at No [address] (No 1) sets a precedent in terms of height of boundary treatment. The development at No 1 is different from the appeal development in a number of ways. In comparison with the appeal proposal the wall at No 1 is lower and the wooden fence above higher, so the boundary treatment at No 1 does not appear as bulky as that at the appeal site. Further there is a second storey at No 1 so the boundary treatment does not result in a “fortress” appearance, and the dwelling provides some surveillance of the street. Notwithstanding this, the height of the front boundary treatment at No 1 has eroded the character and appearance of the area. However, not sufficient to alter the predominant character of the area so as to justify further development which would be harmful.

The submitted drawings also reference Nos 4, 6, 12 and 14a [site address] and planning permission at [address] (application reference 2024/3642) as setting a precedent in terms of height of boundary treatment. Some of the locations are not in the immediate area of the appeal site and none result in a boundary treatment that obscures the front elevation of the dwelling to the extent of the appeal development. Again, the boundary treatments include lower wall elements thereby appearing less bulky than the appeal development. These examples do not therefore provide an appropriate design context for the proposal or provide a clear justification for allowing the appeal.

Overall, I conclude that the development harms the character and appearance of the area and is therefore contrary to Policies LP1 and LP5 of the Wandsworth Local Plan (July 2023) which state that development must enhance and relate positively to the prevailing local character and be unobtrusive in the street scene.

The development conflicts with the development plan as a whole and material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. The appeal should therefore be dismissed.