New facing brick entrance wall

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 29 April 2019 by J Spurling BSc(Hons) DipTP PGDip(Law) PGDip(CMI) MRTPI MCMI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 28th June 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/V4630/D/19/3221852 24 Woodlands Avenue, Walsall, WS5 3LN  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 Susan Paul against the decision of Walsall Council. • The application Ref 18/1287, dated 24 September 2018, was refused by notice dated 25 January 2019. • The development is a new facing brick entrance wall. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary matter 2. I noted that there was some minor variation from the plans1 that were submitted as part of the application, including the style of the pedestrian and vehicular gate that were in place. For the avoidance of doubt, my decision is based upon the scheme as constructed. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the street scene. Reasons 4. The appeal property is a recently constructed detached bungalow. A characteristic feature of Woodlands Avenue is that large detached properties are set well back from the road with largely open plan front gardens and front driveways. Any enclosures are generally low level. 5. As part of the planning permission granted2 for the replacement of the bungalow, a condition discharge application was submitted that stated ‘Existing timber boundary fence treatments to be retained and made good as required’. Condition 11 of that planning permission removed permitted development rights for front boundary treatments. 6. The front boundary wall, fence and gates, which are the subject of this appeal are already in place. The front boundary treatment comprises an approximately 1 Ref. Drawing No. 1064-15 Rev.A 2 17/1238 - Erection of bungalow (resubmission of planning application 17/0236). Appeal Decision APP/V4630/D/19/3221852 2 1.05m high timber fence as well as a section of brick wall either side of the central access. There is some landscaping in front of the timber fence and brick wall. The brick wall is then stepped back at an angle from the back of the footway edge and continues at the same height. There are then a number of tall brick pillars, and the wall height increases between these to about 2.1m. The left hand wall, as viewed from Woodlands Avenue, contains a solid pedestrian gate of a broadly similar height. There are two brick pillars of approximately 2.3m in height and between these are solid vehicular gates, which are of a similar height to the pedestrian gate. 7. Whilst the low front boundary treatment, consisting of the wall and low timber fence, are screened to some extent by the landscaping, the tall brick pillars and gates are clearly visible in the street scene and are a prominent feature due to their height, siting and design. The boundary treatment is an incongruous feature that is out of character with its surroundings which, as already described, are characterised by largely open plan front gardens and generally low level front enclosures. 8. My attention has been drawn by the appellant to other boundary treatments in the vicinity of the application site, which include fencing, brick walls and railings. The appellant considers that whilst open plan frontages are a historic feature of Woodlands Avenue this has now been compromised. Whilst photographic evidence and the location of these other boundary treatments were provided to me, I have not been provided with sufficient detail to draw any direct comparison with the appeal proposal and I do not know the full circumstances of these developments. In any event, the appeal must be considered on its own merits and such boundary treatment is generally not a common feature in the street scene, particularly in Woodlands Avenue. 9. For the above reasons, I consider that the front boundary wall, fence and gates are an unsympathetic addition to the appeal property. I conclude that the character and appearance of the street scene is unacceptably harmed. This conflicts with policies ENV2 and ENV3 of the Black Country Core Strategy (2011) and saved policies 3.6, GP2 and ENV32 of the Walsall Unitary Development Plan (2005), and is also not consistent with policies DW3 and DW9 of the Designing Walsall Supplementary Planning Document. Amongst other matters, these seek to ensure that development should preserve and enhance local character and make a positive contribution to the quality of the environment and that poorly designed proposals that fail to take account of the context or surroundings will not be permitted. Conclusion 10. For these reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal should be dismissed. J Spurling INSPECTOR