Erection of boundary wall

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 21 May 2020 by Jonathan Hockley BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 01 June 2020 Appeal Ref: APP/U1620/D/20/3244811 20 Grafton Road, Gloucester GL2 0QW • 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 Mr Julian Priest against the decision of Gloucester City Council. • The application Ref 19/00748/FUL, dated 5 July 2019, was refused by notice dated 7 November 2019. • The development proposed is the erection of boundary wall. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of boundary wall at 20 Grafton Road, Gloucester GL2 0QW in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 19/00748/FUL, dated 5 July 2019, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:4455/L1/100 rev D, 4455/5A1, 4455/5A1 (Cheltenham Road Street Scene) 4455/5A100, Promap Location Plan. Main Issue 2. The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed boundary wall upon the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. Grafton Road lies to the north east of Gloucester city centre in a patchwork of streets characterised by large, often detached dwellings set in fairly large plots. The character of the area is added to by mature landscaping, both within gardens and in the form of street trees, and boundaries to plots are often strong. 4. The top section of Grafton Road is a cul-de-sac, with bollards and a pavement separating the road from the busier through road of Cheltenham Road to the north. No 20 Grafton Road lies at the head of the street and is a large detached property with gardens primarily to front and side, occupying a corner plot with boundaries to both Grafton and Cheltenham Road. A vehicular access is made to Grafton Road and the remainder of the boundary is delineated by a fairly low close boarded fence. Due to the siting of the property within its plot towards the south east corner and the current boundary treatment, much of the usable Appeal Decision APP/U1620/D/20/3244811 2 gardens of the house are in clear view from Grafton Road and in particular from Cheltenham Road. 5. The proposal seeks to remove the existing low close boarded fence to the boundaries and replace with a wall measuring some 2.15m in total, made up of a 1.6m wall with regularly spaced taller brick columns and intervening black steel railings to the full 2.15m height. 6. There are a range and variety of front boundaries evident in the area, from high fences (such as Nos 19a and No 16 Grafton Road) to fairly high walls and supplementary landscaping, sometimes with railing tops (such as No 18a Grafton Road, Nos 28, 30 Cheltenham Road). Boundaries on the south side of Cheltenham Road in particular are often high and offer little visual permeability through them. 7. The proposed red brick wall and railings would largely fit in with this character and appearance and would also be more befitting of the character of No 20 Grafton Road itself, a substantial 2 storey red brick property with attic and boarded gable ends than the current close boarded fence is. 8. While the boundary would not match exactly either of its direct neighbours; No 18a Grafton Road has an ivy covered wall and No 28 Cheltenham Road a wall topped with railings and supplemented with substantial vegetation, the proposal would not be significantly taller than either adjacent boundary and would be of a similar design in terms of materials to that bordering the Cheltenham Road property. The proposal would not therefore jar with these adjacent boundaries and would be in keeping with the general character of the area. The proposed boundary wall would also offer a level of privacy for the appellant and their family while in their gardens, yet with the majority of the wall being at a little over 5ft tall would still allow some visibility and permeability of the property behind. 9. I am therefore satisfied that the proposed boundary wall would not have an adverse effect upon the character and appearance of the area. The proposal would comply with Policy SD4 of the Joint Core Strategy1 which states that new development should respond positively to and respect the character of the site and its surroundings, and be of a scale, type and materials appropriate to the site and its setting. The proposal would also comply with the National Planning Policy Framework, which states that developments should function well, add to the overall quality of the area and be sympathetic to local character. Conditions and Conclusion 10. I have imposed the standard conditions relating to compliance with plans and time for implementation on both decisions, in the interests of certainty. 11. To summarise I conclude that the proposed wall would not have an adverse effect upon the character and appearance of the area. Therefore, for the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Jon Hockley INSPECTOR 1 Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Joint Core Strategy 2011 -2031, December 2017.