Appeal 6009035

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the street scene and the effect on biodiversity.

The development was substantially complete prior to the application to the Council.

The appeal building is a two storey; double hip fronted dwelling located at a high level above the busy road of [site address] / [address]. The development includes a timber panelled screen fence that faces the road. the Council considers that the development has no adverse effect on the amenity of neighbours. I see no reason to disagree as the properties opposite the appeal site include single storey buildings used in connection with a garage and laundry. There is also an adequate separation distance from neighbouring dwellings with no significant impacts on the outlook, received sunlight or privacy of neighbours.

The appellant advises that an upper sitting area, patio, and steps have existed for many years at the site and demonstrate an established pattern of use at the upper level. In addition, the decking has been laid broadly in line with the existing ground levels of the seating area, with only minor localised levelling undertaken to create a safe and even surface. The appellant submits that as a result, the structure sits very close to the original landform and does not introduce any significant additional height beyond what previously existed at this level.

Although that may be the case, the timber screen fencing which has been erected for the balcony can be seen set back beyond a garage and a related stone structure. It may be viewed from the adjacent road by pedestrians and vehicle drivers approaching the bend in the road, and uphill from a westerly direction. At this point in the road the development is at a high level in a generally verdant setting, consistent with the wooded areas at [site address] , whereas lower down at [address] dwellings are next to each other, and close to the road.

The panelled screen fencing appears obtrusive and out of scale in relation to the dwelling because of its height in an elevated position, extent, and use of materials. I accept that there are examples of timber fencing in the area, and that the screen fencing has not been finished. Although it could be treated to be more sympathetic to its surroundings, its height makes it overly prominent and out of character.

The appellant has advised that the proposal includes a live wall or green wall to be installed to the front of the panelling. However, it was apparent at my site inspection that a row of conifer trees had been planted at the front of the fence. Although these would be capable of screening views of the fence over time, they would fail to complement the character and appearance of the mix of tree and shrub species which exist at the locality.

I find that the panelled screen fencing which has been erected is significantly harmful to the character and appearance of the street scene. It conflicts with policy 10 of the [name] (ACS) which seeks to ensure, amongst other things, that development makes a positive contribution to the public realm and sense of place. It also conflicts with policies DE1 and DE2 of the Nottingham City Council Local Plan Part 2 (LAPP) which indicate that development should respect and enhance the streetscape and be of high urban design quality and respect the local context.

The Council advises that construction of the development has involved the removal of trees and shrubs, thereby reducing the biodiversity and landscape quality of the appeal site. I have no details of the number of trees and vegetation which have been removed or the precise condition of the trees. I acknowledge the submission by the appellant’s gardener, but this neither comprises a professional tree condition report or ecological survey. The area of trees and shrubs removed would have been relatively small and not subject to a Tree Preservation Order. However, in principle the loss of habitat would conflict with policy 17 of the ACS and policies EN6 and EN7 of the LAPP which seek to protect and promote biodiversity and retain trees where possible.

The appellant has referred to the National Planning Policy Framework and the benefits of the development including making use of previously developed land, increased safety, use of local contractors and provision of an outdoor area that meets modern family needs. However, it does not represent sustainable development in environmental terms because of the visual harm caused by the high panelled screen fencing facing the road and loss of biodiversity.

I acknowledge the [name] and boundary obligation, but it is insufficient justification for erecting the panelled screen fencing of the height and scale that has been erected facing the road.

The appellant considers that the Council appears to have treated the proposal as a single indivisible structure, rather than recognising that certain components could reasonably be implemented without express permission. However, the appellant has not defined which components would constitute permitted development.

For the reasons given above, the development conflicts with the development plan as a whole and should be dismissed.