Appeal 6007588

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for a part-retrospective erection of a new front boundary wall and entry gate (revised design to DM/25/2104) at [site address] , [name] [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref. DM/25/2976 and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this Decision;

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plan: [name]. A.101 [name].

The main issue is the effect of the boundary wall on the character and appearance of the street scene in this part of [address].

In visiting the appeal site, I saw that in the approach from the junction with [address] there are large, detached houses on both sides of [address] with a variety of front boundaries. In my view this part of the road is largely suburban in character and appearance, although in the final stretch before the appeal site the street scene becomes more rural. This is due to a combination of the hedges and mature trees that form the boundaries to dwellings on the northern side and the fact that there are open fields and woodland to the south opposite No. 50 and nearby dwellings.

To the extent that there are brick boundary walls in this approach these are of a low height and unobtrusive, but in addition to the 2m high wall at No. 50 in this appeal there are also brick walls close by, at No. 44 and at No. 52, the adjoining property on the western side of the appeal site. The officer’s Report explains that No. 44 has permission for a 1m high wall (although this has been built to a height of 1.4m or Appeal Decision Ref. 6007588 1.5m plus piers), whilst No. 52 has no permission but has become lawful through the passage of time.

Bearing in mind that there is now an immediate context of brick built front walls, I do not consider the principle of a similarly built boundary wall at No. 50 to be unacceptable. In my view the Council was correct to refuse retrospective permission under reference DM/25/2104, as with no piers and a 2m height the wall appears as too stark and utilitarian. However, any adverse effect from a perception of being too high is considerably mitigated by the overhang of greenery (albeit less effective in winter), whilst the proposed slight reduction in height and the introduction of seven capped piers proposed in the appeal scheme would be a significant improvement in design.

Importantly, the design is not one of a brick wall with wooden panel insets which is a patently suburban boundary that would be wholly unacceptable in this location. Brick walls are often part and parcel of rural settings and in this case the brick has a ‘warm’ colour, and its appearance will improve over time because of weathering.

I have taken account of the objection of three residents, but also note that this view is not shared by Hassocks Parish Council. Overall, I consider that there would be no harmful conflict with Policies DP12 and DP26 of the Mid Sussex District Plan 2014-2031 adopted March 2018; Policy 9 of the Hassocks Neighbourhood Plan 2020; The Mid Sussex Design Guide SPD and Section 12: ‘[name] of Government policy in the National Planning Policy Framework, December 2024.

For the reasons set out above, the appeal is allowed, and part retrospective permission granted subject to the condition that the wall is built in accordance with the approved plan: [name]. A.101 [name]. This condition is needed in the interests of certainty and proper planning.