For extension of boundary wall and fencing and works to driveway

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 12 March 2019 by Mr C J Tivey BSc (Hons) BPl MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 21st March 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/A1910/D/18/3215618 2 Whitewood Road, Berkhamsted HP4 3LJ • 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 Mehul Patel against the decision of Dacorum Borough Council. • The application Ref 4/02625/17/FHA, dated 5 October 2017, was refused by notice dated 22 August 2018. • The development proposed is for extension of boundary wall and fencing and works to driveway. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the extension of boundary wall and fencing and works to driveway at 2 Whitewood Road, Berkhamsted HP4 3LJ in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 4/02625/17/FHA, dated 5 October 2017, subject to the following conditions: 1. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plan: DD 18/095.1. 2. The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the boundary wall hereby permitted shall be carried out wholly in accordance with the details listed in Section 11 (materials) of the planning application form. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the appeal proposal upon the character and appearance of the street scene, including in respect of outlook from neighbouring properties. Procedural Matter 3. The proposed boundary wall and fencing and works to the driveway were in situ albeit unfinished at the time of my site visit. The description of proposed works sets out a chronological history and justification for the proposed development. However, I consider that the Council’s description of development, as set out within the planning decision notice, to be more succinct and I have therefore used this within the banner heading above. I have determined the appeal on this basis. Reasons 4. The proposal relates to a blockwork wall and fence which amounts to an extension of the brick wall and fence that was previously approved by the Appeal Decision APP/A1910/D/18/3215618 2 Council; and encloses land forward and to the side of the host dwelling which is used as private outdoor amenity area for the appellant and his family. Further, the previously approved brick wall and fence amounted to a continuation of the side boundary wall of 17 Finch Road to the west. In its current guise, much like for the retaining wall that encloses the driveway area, the grey blockwork is stark in its appearance, although it is proposed for this to be rendered and painted in a neutral colour. 5. The wall and fence is also quite high, particularly where it turns 90° away from the road towards the house, however due to the aforementioned existing and previously approved boundary treatments due west along the road, I consider that, on balance, it is not unduly overbearing and a quite reasonable distance from neighbouring properties. Therefore, whilst outlook will have clearly have changed from that prior to the development taking place, it would not give rise to demonstrable harm to the living conditions of nearby residents. I say this notwithstanding that I accept that the Character Area Assessment (BCA16 Durrants) generally considers that the enclosure of front areas is not encouraged where this would harm the appearance of the street scene. However, having regard to what has been previously approved and constructed, I consider that overall, the proposal would not be materially harmful to the character of the street scene once complete. 6. I note the third party concerns with regard to the form of construction and whether a covenant that restricts such developments is in place, however these are a matter for the Building Regulations and a civil matter respectively, and are beyond the scope of the Planning system. Therefore they do not constitute determining factors in this appeal. 7. I conclude that the boundary wall and fence once completed would not appear unduly overbearing when viewed from neighbouring properties or from the street. Taking into account that there is still a substantial area of frontage retained as open, I find no material conflict with the Character Area Assessment and I find that the proposal complies with Policy CS12 of the Decorum Borough Council Core Strategy 2016 – 2031 (2013) which requires developments to integrate with streetscape character and respect adjoining properties in terms of layout, scale, height, materials and landscaping. Conclusion and Conditions 8. For the reasons set out above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should succeed. 9. The Council have suggested that the standard time limit condition be imposed, however as the development has begun this is not necessary. However, for the avoidance of doubt, a condition requiring that the development is carried out in its entirety in accordance with the approved plans is imposed. Furthermore, in the interests of the character and appearance of the area it is appropriate to require the external materials to be used in the construction of the development hereby permitted, to be in accordance with those specified within the planning application forms. C J Tivey INSPECTOR