Appeal 6006554

The appeal is dismissed.

I have taken the description of development from the Council’s decision notice as this more succinctly and accurately describes the appeal proposal. However, I have omitted reference to the development being retrospective, as this does not constitute an act of development.

The appellant and the Council acknowledge that the proposed development has already been provided on site, and this was observed during my site visit. The works carried out would appear to be consistent with the submitted plans, and I have therefore assessed the appeal on this basis.

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

The appeal property occupies a prominent corner location within a residential estate characterised by properties of similar architectural design. The position of properties within their respective plots, along with the abundance of landscaping, open frontages and strips of green space, combines to create a spacious and verdant character that makes a positive contribution to the overall character and appearance of the area.

Prior to the appeal development, the site formed part of a landscaped strip which extends along the frontages of neighbouring properties. Although photographic evidence indicates that it was not always well maintained, the greenery, together with the grassed verge on the opposite side of the pavement, nevertheless contributed positively to the spacious and verdant character of the street scene.

Boundary treatments within the immediate vicinity are predominantly characterised by red brick walls and soft landscaping, which integrate well into the street scene and are not visually dominant or intrusive. While there are examples of fencing of a comparable height and proximity to the footway elsewhere on the estate, these are not located in close proximity to the appeal site. Consequently, they do not inform the context in which the development is seen and experienced.

The former brick wall, which enclosed only the rear garden, was set back from the pavement, positioned behind the grassed strip and largely screened by mature landscaping. The area to the side of the property and adjacent to the pavement was unenclosed, with the landscaped strip providing a soft, physical and visual divide between the property and the footway. By contrast, the replacement fence, although of a similar height in part now extends the full length of the boundary and is located directly on the edge of the pavement. As a result, it is significantly more conspicuous and reads as a stark and abrupt form of enclosure, with no screening.

The removal of the grass strip combined with the erection of the obtrusive fence and introduction of hardstanding has unacceptably eroded the verdant qualities of the street scene, to the detriment of its character and appearance. Given the siting of the fence, there is limited scope to introduce meaningful replacement planting in front of it that would either positively contribute to the verdant character of the site’s surroundings or effectively soften its intrusive form. The prominent location of the site on a main thoroughfare means that the discordant and obtrusive nature of the proposal is readily visible to passers-by and neighbouring occupants.

For these reasons, I find that the appeal development harms the character and appearance of the area contrary to Policy ESD 15 of the Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031 (2015) and saved Policy C28 of the Cherwell Local Plan (1996). Amongst other aspects, these policies collectively seek to ensure that development is sympathetic to its surroundings and contributes positively to the area’s character.

Based on the evidence before me, it has not been demonstrated that the appeal development represented either the only, or an appropriate, means of addressing concerns relating to structural stability and public safety, dog fouling, odour and littering, trespass and security. Furthermore, whilst the underground infrastructure may have influenced the removal of the former landscaping and constrain future planting opportunities, it remains unclear why it would have required the grassed strip itself to be removed.

Whilst the information provided may clarify the extent of land ownership, it does not alter the established function of the appeal site as amenity land. In any event, land ownership has no bearing on my considerations of the merits of the proposal. It is regrettable that personal remarks were made by interested parties in commenting on the planning application. Nevertheless, in determining this appeal I have had regard only to those matters that are relevant to the planning merits.

Even if the preliminary advice secured via the Planning Portal did not raise any objection to the proposal, such advice is given without prejudice to the consideration and outcome of any subsequent planning application. Accordingly, whilst I understand the appellant’s frustrations and appreciate that there was no deliberate disregard of planning control, this does not alter my conclusions.

Matters of character and appearance are inherently site-specific. Whilst there may be superficial similarities between the development subject of the Wokingham appeal and the proposal before me, I am not persuaded that the respective contexts are directly comparable. Furthermore, the Elmesthorpe appeal concerns the lawfulness of the development rather than an assessment of its planning merits and is therefore materially different to the appeal before me. Accordingly, these cases do not alter my findings.

The Council alleged no harm in relation to highway safety, drainage, ecology and living conditions. These however are neutral factors and do not weigh in favour of the appeal development. As no evidence has been submitted to indicate that the policies which are most important for determining the appeal are out-of-date, paragraph 11d) of the National Planning Policy Framework is not engaged.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above the appeal is dismissed.