Porch to the side and renewed front wall on boundary

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 8 October 2019 by Andrew Tucker BA (Hons) IHBC an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of Stat e Decision date: 21 October 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/U1240/D/19/3233219 31 Albert Road, Corfe Mullen BH21 3QD • 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 Perry against the decision of Dorset Council. • The application Ref 3/19/0287/HOU, dated 29 January 2019, was refused by notice dated 29 April 2019. • The development proposed is porch to the side and renewed front wall on boundary. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to the renewed front wall. 2. The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to the porch and planning permission is granted for the porch at 31 Albert Road, Corfe Mullen BH21 3QD, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 3/19/0287/HOU, dated 29 January 2019, and the submitted plans, insofar as they relate to the porch only: 1713-PL-01 A, 1713-PL-10 A, 1713-PL-11 A, 1713-PL-12 B, 1713-PL-13 A. Preliminary Matters 3. On 1 April 2019 East Dorset District Council merged with North Dorset District Council, Purbeck District Council, West Dorset District Council and Weymouth and Portland Borough Council to become Dorset Council. The development plans for the merged local planning authority remain in place for the former area of East Dorset District Council until such a time as they are revoked or replaced. It is therefore necessary for me to determine this appeal with reference to policies set out in the plans produced by the now dissolved East Dorset District Council. 4. The porch structure appeared to be complete and front boundary walls were substantially built but not fully rendered or decorated at the time of my visit to the site. Fence inserts had not been erected but the gates had been hung. However, the wall as built differs from the submitted plans in that the top of each section of wall is horizontal, resulting in a stepped arrangement, whereas the submitted plans show a wall that would be aligned to follow the slope of the site. I will therefore base my assessment of the proposal on the submitted plans rather than the part built structure that I saw at my site visit. Appeal Decision APP/U1240/D/19/3233219 2 Main Issue 5. The effect on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 6. The appeal site is located in a residential area characterised by a spacious arrangement of bungalows set back from the road. Front boundaries are enclosed predominantly by low walls or hedges or both, giving a verdant appearance to the streetscene. There are a few examples of high brick or rendered walls with fence inserts in the area as highlighted by the appellant. Many of these appear to be fairly recently constructed as part of the improvement and upgrading of the property. However, taking into account these examples and my visit to the area I am of the view that these are not at all common, and where they are seen they appear rather incongruous, particularly where they are finished with render. Furthermore, the appellant suggests that some of these examples may not have received planning permission, which reduces the weight that I should attach to these when considering the acceptability of the appeal proposal. 7. The solid lower part of the wall would be taller than the modest low brick walls that front many properties in the area. The proposal also includes a series of pillars that would significantly increase the height and prominence of the structure. Its scale would be further compounded by the close board fence panel inserts between the pillars, as specified on the submitted plan, which would result in a tall and solid boundary to the front of the plot. Where nearby boundaries are at a similar height to this they are almost always formed with hedges, which gives a soft appearance and accords with the spacious suburban character of the area. As such the proposed wall would fail to accord with the predominant form of front boundaries in the area owing to its scale, form and materials, and would therefore harm the area’s character and appearance. 8. The Council refers to the sloping characteristics of the site in its reason for refusal. I am not convinced that this would make the wall any more prominent based on the design proposed on the submitted plans. Therefore, this matter has had no bearing on my decision. 9. The appellant suggests that the wall would provide privacy for the front facing bedroom. The window of this room faces towards the road but is set back a significant depth, further than the front faces of the bungalows to either side. I am not satisfied that this is a significant matter that could be used to justify what is otherwise a harmful proposal. 10. The application also includes a porch extension, infilling an area to the side of the front facing wing. The Council has not expressed any concern in relation to this element of the application, and I note that it is not included in its refusal reason. Based on the information before me and my visit to the site, I find this element of the proposal to be acceptable. 11. In summary, I find that the porch does not cause harm to the character or appearance of the area. However, I find that the renewed front wall on boundary has a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area and therefore does not accord with Policy HE2 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan Part 1 – Core Strategy adopted April 2014 (LP) and section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which seek to ensure Appeal Decision APP/U1240/D/19/3233219 3 that development proposals are designed to a high quality that reflects and enhances local character and distinctiveness. Conclusion and Conditions 12. For the reasons above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed insofar as it relates to the porch. However, in relation to the renewed front wall the appeal should be dismissed. The two elements of the proposal are both physically and functionally severable. I therefore consider a split decision to be the logical outcome. 13. I have had regard to the planning conditions that have been suggested by the Council and considered them against the tests in the Framework and the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance. The porch structure was complete at the time of my visit, and there is no evidence before me to suggest that it has not been carried out in accordance with the submitted plans. I therefore do not consider a time limit condition or materials condition to be necessary. I have referred to the approved plans in my decision. Andrew Tucker INSPECTOR