To remove existing boundary post and rail fence to the north and replace with new garden wall at 1.85m high

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 February 2019 by Nick Palmer BA (Hons) BPl MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 1 March 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/J3530/D/18/3217902 The Old Post Office, Hill Farm Road, Playford, Ipswich, Suffolk IP6 9DU • 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 Matthew Hammond against the decision of Suffolk Coastal District Council. • The application Ref DC/18/4598/FUL, dated 6 November 2018, was refused by notice dated 5 December 2018. • The development proposed is to remove existing boundary post and rail fence to the north and replace with new garden wall at 1.85m high. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue in the appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a detached house which is at the corner of Hill Farm Road and Butts Road. The property is at present partly enclosed by hedges and partly by a post and rail fence. The proposed wall would replace fencing and hedging along the Hill Farm Road frontage and would enclose the rear garden of the property. 4. The property is on the edge of the village and adjoins the open countryside of the River Fynn valley. The nearby road frontages within the village are characterised mainly by trees and hedges with houses being set back. Some front boundaries are open or have low fencing. I saw that front boundary walls are limited and do not form a key part of the character. The value of the Fynn valley landscape is recognised in Policy SP15 of the Local Plan1 as being particularly significant. 5. In this rural context the proposed wall, which would be of significant length and height, would be an intrusive form of built development. Its design, in terms of the brickwork to be used and the detailing including recessed panels would be of suitable quality. However, it would have an urban appearance which would be out of character with its surroundings. Given its location within a valued landscape, this would be particularly harmful. 1 Suffolk Coastal District Local Plan Core Strategy & Development Management Policies (2013) Appeal Decision APP/J3530/D/18/3217902 2 6. Policy SP15 of the Local Plan requires protection and enhancement of the landscape character areas. Policy DM21 requires that proposals relate well to the character of their surroundings. That policy requires that attention is given to boundary treatments, particularly on the edge of settlements. The starkness of the wall and its urban appearance would be at odds with the sensitivity of the landscape character and for this reason the proposal would not accord with Policies SP15 and DM21. 7. For these reasons I find that the proposal would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the area. Conclusion 8. I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Nick Palmer INSPECTOR