Erection of front wall with piers and railings and brick side walls, pair timber electric gates

Appeal Decision Site Visit made on 6 April 2021 by Graham Wraight BA(Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 26 April 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/P2365/D/21/3269621 60 Elmers Green, Skelmersdale WN8 6SB • 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 Shirley Blamphin against the decision of West Lancashire Borough Council. • The application Ref 2020/0869/FUL, dated 29 September 2020, was refused by notice dated 8 January 2021. • The development proposed is the erection of front wall with piers and railings and brick side walls, pair timber electric gates. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. The development has been undertaken and therefore I have determined the appeal on that basis. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 4. The appeal site is located on a spur of Elmers Green which consists of a number of dwellings arranged along a cul-de-sac. The substantial frontages of adjacent dwellings are open with an absence of boundary structures and are generally characterised by the presence of grass and soft landscaping. This gives the surrounding area a spacious feel and contributes positively to its character and appearance. 5. The development which is the subject of the appeal stands alone in the cul-de- sac in terms of being an enclosure to the frontage of a dwelling. It forms a dominant and incongruous feature for this reason and due to its height and design, jarring visually with the open and spacious character of its surroundings. This has resulted in significant harm to the character and appearance of the area. 6. I note that photographs have been provided which show that there was previously a wall and fence along the side boundaries of the appeal site. However, the impact of these structures is not comparable to the impact of the appeal development which has, in addition, enclosed the entire frontage of the property. Appeal Decision APP/P2365/D/21/3269621 2 7. My attention has been drawn to other examples of boundary treatments in prominent locations in the surrounding area and I observed these during my visit to the area. I do not have any details of the circumstances of how these other examples came to be present but, in any event, they are not located within the spur of Elmers Green on which the appeal site sits. They do not therefore visually contribute to the locality in which the appeal site is found and they do not justify the presence of the development that is before me. 8. For these reasons, I conclude that the development has caused significant harm to the character and appearance of the area and consequently that it fails to accord with Policy GN3 of the West Lancashire Local Plan 2013, where it seeks to protect character and appearance. The development also conflicts with the Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 2008, The National Planning Policy Framework and The National Design Guide where they refer to the same objectives. Other Matters 9. It is suggested that the development is needed to provide privacy to the occupiers of the appeal dwelling, but due to its height and the visibility afforded through the railings it provides only a very limited benefit in that regard. Whilst it does provide a degree of security, this does not outweigh the significant harm that has been caused to the character and appearance of the area. Conclusion 10. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Graham Wraight INSPECTOR