For a front boundary wall, entrance gates and widening of vehicle crossover

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 December 2024 by G Ellis BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 18 December 2024 Appeal Ref: APP/K3605/D/24/3353656 27 Riverside Road, Hersham, Walton on Thames, Surrey KT12 4PE • 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 Mehmet Yilmaz against the decision of Elmbridge Borough Council. • The application Ref 2024/1096. • The development proposed is for a front boundary wall, entrance gates and widening of vehicle crossover. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. The development has, in part, been implemented with the erection of the boundary wall and pillars. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 4. No.27 is a semi-detached house which forms part of a linear row of properties along Riverside Road, which runs parallel to Esher Road set beyond a grass verge. The properties have the same general appearance with low-level brick walls to the front boundary which create a consistency to the street scene. 5. The higher boundary wall with pillars of an additional height extending across the frontage and also along the side boundary contrasts significantly with the prevailing form. The addition of the railings and sliding gates, which also form part of the proposal but have not yet been installed, would further add to the scale and sense of enclosure. These are not features of the area, with the frontages having an openness, including unobstructed access to the driveway parking. 6. The visual intrusion is also accentuated by the materials which do not match those of the main property or the existing boundary walls. While the mix of orange and dark grey bricks respond to those utilised in a front extension, the Council advise that this does not have the benefit of planning permission. Appeal Decision APP/K3605/D/24/3353656 2 7. Overall, I find the height, form and materials of the proposed boundary treatment would be an unsympathetic and dominating feature. It would be out of keeping with the prevailing form and adversely impact the appearance of this part of Riverside Road. 8. Consequently, the proposed boundary treatment would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area and fails to accord with policy CS17 of the Elmbridge Core Strategy 2011, policy DM2 of the Elmbridge Local Plan - Development Plan 2015, and the Design and Character SPD 2012. Together these promote high-quality development which integrates with the locality and preserves or enhances the character of the area. Other Matters 9. I understand the need to feel safe within your home and the benefits that the proposal may bring in terms of increased security for the occupiers, and the associated financial investment of such provisions. However, there is nothing before me to indicate that this proposal is the only option or any detailed evidence that there are ongoing or specific safety issues in this area. These matters nor the personal circumstances do not outweigh the adverse harm I have found to the character and appearance of the area. 10. The Council also included a reason for refusal in relation to flood risk. The site is within Flood Zone 2, and, as such, in accordance with the Council’s Flood Risk Supplementary Planning Document, a Flood Risk Assessment is required to demonstrate that the development is not at risk of flooding or there is no increased risk elsewhere. As a small-scale householder development, which is primarily to increase the height of the front boundary wall, the impacts are likely to be limited although no supporting information was submitted as part of the application. As I have found against the proposal on the main matter, this is not a determinative issue and could be potentially addressed through further details. Conclusion 11. For the reasons set out, and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed. G Ellis INSPECTOR