Erection of boundary wall

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 February 2026 by E Fawcett BA (Jt Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 25 February 2026 Appeal Ref: 6002560 30 Meadway, Sale, Trafford M33 4PR • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Jyoti Sinha against the decision of Trafford Borough Council. • The application Ref is 116975/HHA/25. • The development proposed is described on the application form as “erection of boundary wall”. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. Notwithstanding the description of development set out above, which is taken from the application form, it is clear from the plans and accompanying details that the development comprises the erection of a boundary fence incorporating brick piers. At my site visit I noted that the boundary treatment had been partially constructed. For the avoidance of doubt, I have assessed the appeal proposal and based my decision on the plans before me. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 4. The appeal property relates to a detached bungalow positioned on a corner plot within a residential area. Due to the siting of the dwelling, the majority of the garden lies to the side and front, adjacent to the highway. This space is partly enclosed by an existing timber fence along Meadway and a hedgerow along Meadway Close. Although the front garden is currently open, the evidence indicates that vegetation previously existed close to the boundary with the pavement, which would likely have provided a degree of enclosure. 5. The proposal would introduce fencing along most of the front and side boundary, continuing the existing fencing at the property. Given its length, height, and prominent corner position immediately adjacent to the pavement, combined with the existing fencing, the proposal would form an overtly dominant and visually intrusive feature within the street scene. Although the retention of the low boundary wall and the use of the brick piers would provide some variation to the boundary treatment, they would do little to mitigate the stark and expansive appearance of the fencing. In addition, the proposal would erode the open and Appeal Decision 6002560 2 verdant character of the area, not only through the introduction of the solid boundary treatment but also through the loss of the existing boundary vegetation to accommodate the proposal. 6. Although boundary treatments vary locally, low front walls are the predominant feature and contribute to the street’s open character. Higher boundaries generally take the form of hedgerows, which, together with other garden vegetation, create a pleasant and verdant appearance. While some tall timber fences exist nearby, including at the appeal property, they are not typical of the area. I recognise that some neighbouring plots, including corner sites, have similar fencing. However, I have limited information on their planning history, and the proposal would add to the visual harm already caused by such features. Given that tall and visually assertive boundaries are not characteristic of the locality, these examples do not alter my assessment or justify further development that would conflict with the established character. 7. The appellant has also referred to taller boundaries elsewhere, which I viewed during my site visit. Again, I have little information on their planning history. Moreover, the examples on The Avenue do not share the same relationship with the public realm, as they are largely separated from the highway by a wide grass verge with mature trees, significantly reducing their visual impact. 8. I conclude that the proposed development would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area. Conflict arises with Policy JP-P1 of the Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan Document (2024) and Policy L7 of the Trafford Local Plan: Core Strategy (2012). Collectively these seek to ensure, amongst other things, that proposals respect and acknowledge the character and identity of the locality and enhance the street scene or character of the area by appropriately addressing boundary treatments. 9. The proposal would also conflict with the Council’s SPD4 - A Guide for Designing Housing Extensions and Alterations (2012) which requires boundary treatments to be retained or to reflect the prevailing character, and advises that overly tall boundaries that dominate the street scene should be avoided. It also makes clear that poor local examples do not justify further unsympathetic development. Furthermore, the proposal also raises conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework, which seeks to ensure that development adds to the overall quality of the area, is visually attractive and establishes or maintains a strong sense of place. 10. The appellant has made reference to the National Design Guide and the Trafford Design Code. I have not been provided with a copy of these guidance documents, and it is not clear which specific part of them is relevant to the scheme before me. In any event, given the above conflict found with the development plan policies, this is not a determinative factor in this case. Other Matters 11. I acknowledge that the site is not subject to heritage or landscape designations and that no neighbour objections have been raised. These matters are neutral in the planning balance. 12. The appellant states that the proposal would improve privacy, security and definition of the plot. I have had regard to the requirements of Article 8 of the Appeal Decision 6002560 3 Human Rights Act 1998. However, I am mindful that the appellant’s individual rights for respect for private and family life must be weighed against other factors including the wider public interest. A grant of permission for the development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. I attach substantial weight to these findings against the appeal. The harm caused by the appeal development outweighs its benefits. Based on the evidence presented, I conclude that it is proportionate and necessary to dismiss the appeal. 13. The other matters raised, including the claimed benefits, would not outweigh the harm identified above. Accordingly, the proposal would not amount to sustainable development. Conclusion 14. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole, and there are no material considerations that would outweigh this conflict. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. E Fawcett INSPECTOR