Appeal 6007182

The appeal is dismissed.

Since the development which is the subject of this appeal has already been largely carried out, the application is to be treated as one made under Section 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

The “Description of [address]” that is given in the planning application form is very extensive and it includes explanatory material. It is clear, however, that it relates to two pairs of pillars (and gates) on the front boundary, rather than to the boundary treatment as a whole, seeking permission for the “retention of three partially completed brick gateposts, and permission to complete the fourth”, as well as the “installation of two dark brown timber sliding gates”. In the Council’s notice of refusal, the proposed development is identified as “two pairs of brick gateposts forming part of an in/out driveway at the front boundary”.

Notwithstanding the description given in the planning application form, therefore, the nature of the specific proposal that is the subject of this appeal can more clearly and succinctly be expressed as “the construction of two pairs of brick gateposts and the installation of timber sliding gates”. That is the description that I have adopted in the banner heading, above.

The main issue to be determined in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surroundings in the [address] Top & Meadowcourt Conservation Area. Appeal Decision: 6007182

The appeal site is located in a pleasant residential area, in the north-western part of Oadby, between the more central parts Oadby and Leicester. The area is a leafy suburban area and [address] is a quiet road with wide grass verges set with mature trees. The locality is described as “[name]”. The surroundings are characterised by large houses in substantial plots and some of the houses are “locally listed”, although the properties are mostly well screened form public viewpoints by mature hedges and trees. The area is a designated heritage asset as the [address] Top & Meadowcourt Conservation Area.

Number [site address] is now a large two-storey dwelling on a large site that has been the subject of redevelopment works. On the front boundary of the site, a new boundary treatment has been created. This comprises a low wall with two pairs of piers, creating an “in/out driveway”. The wall has been constructed as a double wall, with a yew hedge along the frontage between the pairs of piers. The wall and piers have been built of grey-blue brickwork and the construction is well advanced, although it has not been completed.

The ground level slopes across the frontage of the site and, currently, the wall varies in height from less than one metre above adjacent ground level to a little over one metre. Nevertheless, the planning application and appeal do not cover the wall and permission is now sought for the two pairs of piers and their gates.

Provisions in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 impose obligations on those considering whether to grant planning permission for development that would affect a conservation area. In such cases, decision makers are required to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas affected by development proposals.

Those formal requirements are reinforced by the ‘National Planning Policy Framework’, especially at Section 16, which emphasises the importance of conserving or enhancing the historic environment. More generally, the ‘National Planning Policy Framework’ sets out the aim of “achieving well designed places” in the broadest sense (notably at Section 12), while making effective use of land and encouraging economic activity. It is aimed at achieving good design standards generally, by adding to the overall quality of the area and being visually attractive and sympathetic to local character and history.

An emphasis on the importance of protecting heritage assets and of encouraging good design is also to be found in the Development Plan and specifically in ‘The Borough of Oadby and Wigston Local Plan 2011 – 2031’ (which was adopted in April 2019). Policy 6 of the ‘Local Plan’ points out the importance of “[name] and Materials”, respecting their surroundings, while Policies 40, 41 and 44 are concerned with historic environment assets more specifically, including conservation areas.

The Council’s ‘Residential Development Supplementary Planning Document’ (dated April 2019) is also relevant. It does not have the force of the statutory Development Plan but it includes more detailed guidance about boundary treatments. Appeal Decision: 6007182

The front gardens of other properties in the area are usually characterised by mature hedges that screen the houses, provide a measure of security and soften the townscape. In some cases, hedges are combined with low walls on the frontage, while some properties have taller gates. Fences are not common, however, and the materials used are generally in harmony with the surroundings.

In this case, the brickwork of the new wall and piers is stark and modern in feeling, more in keeping with the new house at number 13 than with the softer character of the Conservation Area. The new piers are taller and wider than other gateposts in the locality, even though they are obviously unfinished, the pier on the north-east corner of the plot, in particular, being little higher than the front boundary wall. Thus, the height and width of the new piers would make them a significant feature in the streetscene when finished.

The submitted drawing of the front boundary treatment shows a horizontal ground level (although the ground slopes across the frontage of the plot) and it shows the finished piers to be 2.2 or 2.15 metres high. Details of the gate mechanism are unclear. It is evident, nevertheless, that the piers will be bulky and intrusive when complete, and out of character with other frontages in the Conservation Area.

The yew hedge has yet to become established. It could soften the appearance of the frontage as the hedge matures, although the submissions give little detail.

Even so, the piers for which planning permission is now sought are unsatisfactory in their setting. The new boundary treatment would provide some benefits (of security, for example) but the proposed piers, in combination with the remainder of the construction would, when finished, appear as an incongruous and unharmonious feature within the streetscene.

It has been argued that the piers are immune from enforcement action due to the lapse of time but this planning appeal does not address the issue of lawfulness. In any case, I am not persuaded, on the evidence before me, that the piers have yet been finished to the stage of practical completion. I must, therefore, determine this appeal as it comes before me.

Evidently, the appeal site lies within an established urban area, which is “sustainable” in planning terms, Nevertheless, I am convinced that the harm that would be done to the character and appearance of the surroundings in the [address] Top & Meadowcourt Conservation Area clearly outweighs the benefits of the project. Hence, I have concluded that the scheme before me would conflict with both national and local planning policies (including the Development Plan) and that it ought not to be allowed. [name] have considered all the matters that have been raised in the representations, I have found nothing to cause me to alter my