Existing boundary wall and gates removed and new boundary wall and gates fitted

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 April 2018 by Caroline Mulloy BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 6th April 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/M4510/D/18/3193960 38 Northumberland Avenue, Gosforth, Newcastle-upon-Tyne NE3 4XH  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mrs Ann Ingram against the decision of Newcastle-upon-Tyne City Council.  The application Ref 2017/1327/01/DET, dated 21 August 2017, was refused by notice dated 21 November 2017.  The development proposed is existing boundary wall and gates removed and new boundary wall and gates fitted. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. The new walls had been erected at the time the application was determined. The application is, therefore, partially retrospective and I have dealt with the appeal on this basis. Main Issue 3. The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 4. The appeal property is a substantial detached dwelling situated on Northumberland Avenue which is comprised of a variety of detached and semi- detached dwellings of differing designs. Dwellings are predominately set back from the road behind modest front gardens or driveways defined by low brick walls and pillars or fences and hedges. I noted that a number of dwellings have been extended to the front. 5. The appeal property previously had an approximately 0.9m high brick wall with a wooden post and rail fence on top situated on one side of the entrance gate providing a total height of around 1.8m. On the other side there was a 1.2m high brick wall and there were also four 2m high brick pillars and metal gates. The wall and gates have been removed and replaced with an approximately 1.8m high brick wall capped with a concrete coping and flanked by brick piers around 2m in height. It is also intended to erect a new wrought iron style pedestrian gate of around 1.8m high in the centre and two new wood effect colour coated metal automated sliding driveway gates around 1.8m high. Appeal Decision APP/M4510/D/18/3193960 2 6. The 1.8m high brick wall extends for a significant proportion of the frontage of the appeal property. The proposed gates would be around 1.8m high and although constructed of metal they would be colour coated and have a wood infill resulting in the appearance of a wooden close boarded fence. Consequently and notwithstanding the variation in colour and texture, the proposal would result in an almost 2m high solid, impermeable boundary for the entire length of the frontage which would appear incongruous, imposing and at odds with the predominately lower boundary treatment which characterises the surrounding area. 7. Although the previous boundary treatment was in need of repair it was, with the exception of the piers, lower than the appeal proposal for the majority of its length. Furthermore, whilst the post and rail fence above the 0.9m wall was viewed against the taller extensions of the adjacent properties from the north and south, it enabled a high degree of permeability when viewed from the front. 8. Numbers 36 and 40 Northumberland Avenue have extensions to the front; however, they do not extend the full width of the respective frontages and they are also set back from the boundary. Furthermore, the boundary treatment is significantly lower. Attention is drawn to number 44 Northumberland Avenue which the appellant states has a close boarded fence and gates at a height of around 2m with a privet hedge behind. However, at the time of my site visit, only the low boundary wall and hedge were in existence; the close boarded fence and gates appeared to have been removed. Consequently, the majority of the frontage of this property is now open. None of these cases are directly comparable to the appeal proposal which limits the weight which I can attach to them in my Decision. 9. No 34 Northumberland Avenue has an approximately 1.8m high brick wall for part of the length of the frontage; however, it has an open vehicular access and thus the entire frontage of the property is not enclosed. No 46 Northumberland Avenue has an around 2m high brick wall with close boarded entrance gates which I acknowledge does enclose the frontage of the property. However, limited details are provided and I cannot, therefore, be certain that it benefits from planning permission which limits the weight which I can attach to it in my Decision. Furthermore, whilst there are a few exceptions, the majority of boundary treatments on this side of the road are lower level. 10. For the reasons stated, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. It would, therefore, be contrary to Policy CS15 of the Core Strategy and Urban Core Plan for Gateshead and Newcastle upon Tyne 2015 and saved Policies EN1.1 and H2 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan (1998) which collectively seek to ensure high standards of design which protects local character and responds to local distinctiveness. Conclusion 11. For the reasons stated and taking all other considerations into account, the appeal should be dismissed. Caroline Mulloy Inspector