Appeal 6007247

The appeal is dismissed.

The development the subject of this appeal has already taken place.

In their appeal statement, the appellants refer to “a material procedural matter” in respect of what they consider to have been unreasonable behaviour by the Council. This is a matter between the appellants and the Council.

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

The appeal property is a semi-detached two storey dwelling. It is located at the corner of [address] where it meets [address], in a residential area close to a primary school.

Houses in the area predominantly comprise two storey semi-detached dwellings, with short driveways and/or garden areas to the front and gardens to the rear. Similarities in the design of houses, together with the use of a similar palette of materials, comprising brick, render and tiles, provides for a pleasant sense of uniformity.

Further, the presence of street trees and grass verges combines with that of gardens to provide for a green and spacious character.

During my site visit, I observed that the majority of boundary treatments in the area comprise a mix of low walls, hedgerows and either open driveways, or driveways with low gates to the entrance. These features appear in keeping with the area’s sense of greenery and spaciousness.

The appeal dwelling is set back from [address] behind a grass verge, pavement and front garden/driveway area. It has a large side garden, which extends to the pavement along [address] and adjoins the rear garden.

[address] rises to [address] such that the appeal dwelling sits lower than [address]. To the front, the development comprises a white rendered wall with several tall pillars and a tall entrance gate. Tall areas of fencing sit above the wall between each of the pillars. To the side, the development comprises a long, tall boundary made up of tall concrete posts and tall fencing set above a concrete base.

As a result of its design, colour, height, length and overall scale, the development draws the eye as an intrusive and incongruous feature which appears in sharp contrast to the largely modest boundary features that are otherwise characteristic of the area.

The harmful effect of the above is exacerbated as a result of the development’s prominent corner location, its siting at the top of [address] and its setting within a green and spacious area, such that the development appears unduly dominant in its surroundings.

Taking all of the above into account, I find that the proposed development harms the character and appearance of the area, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and to Policies DS1 and DS3 of the [name] DPD1, which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character.

In support of their case, the appellants refer to other developments elsewhere. [name] note that there are examples of different boundary treatments elsewhere in the vicinity, there is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that any of of these or the circumstances related to them are so similar to the proposal the subject of this appeal as to provide for direct comparison.

Also in support of their case, the appellants draw my attention to the development providing a secure and calm environment for a vulnerable family member. [name] acknowledge this, there is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that the development comprises the only way in which such an environment can be provided and consequently, this does not amount to a matter that outweighs the harm identified.

For the reasons given above, the appeal does not succeed.