Erection of front compound wall and automated steel gate

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 17 February 2026 by Andrew Fulford BSc MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 02 March 2026 Appeal Ref: 6002588 Badgers Retreat, Brockhill Lane, Redditch, B97 6QX • 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 Martin Varghese against the decision of Redditch Borough Council. • The application Ref is 25/01095/FUL. • The development proposed is the erection of front compound wall and automated steel gate. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Reasons 3. The appeal site is located on the northern edge of the town of Redditch. However, due to the extensive hedgerows alongside both sides of Brockhill Lane the area around the appeal site still has a rural appearance. Any entrance gates are generally either low level wooden or metal gates. 4. The appeal site has a substantial hedgerow along the front boundary which only ends to accommodate the vehicular entrance into the appeal site which is currently open with no entrance gates. The proposal seeks to remove the entirety of the hedgerow. This will substantially alter the verdant soft landscaped character experienced along Brockhill Lane. This is at odds with the Borough of Redditch High Quality Design SPD which at paragraph 3.1.11 highlights that amongst other matters alterations should enhance and strengthen the local distinctiveness of an area. The removal of the hedgerow would clearly harm the distinctive rural character of the lane. 5. The hedgerow would be replaced with a red brick wall with railings above, interspersed with taller piers and automated metal gates at the site entrance. This combination of boundary treatments is substantial in scale and would have a significant urbanising impact on the lane. By virtue of the choice of materials and its overall scale, the boundary treatment would appear incongruous fundamentally altering the rural nature of the street scene and thereby significantly harming the character and appearance of the locality. 6. Reference has been made to a boundary wall and entrance gates at 2 Wheelers Lane. However, No 2 is located within a modern residential estate which despite Appeal Decision 6002588 2 being relatively close to the appeal scheme is sited on a street that has a much more urban appearance. I therefore consider that there is a fundamental difference between the circumstances at No 2 and the appeal proposals. 7. The appellant has indicated that a new hedgerow would be planted. However, the hedgerow would be located behind the boundary wall so it would do little to soften the main boundary treatment and consequently would not overcome the concerns I have raised. 8. The appellant has indicated that the existing hedgerow could be removed under permitted development. However, it is unlikely that the appellant would remove this boundary treatment without having first secured a replacement. I therefore only attach minimal weight to this argument. 9. I conclude that by virtue of the hedgerow loss and the urbanising appearance of the replacement boundary treatment, the appeal scheme would materially harm the character and appearance of the area. It would conflict with policies 39 and 40 of the Borough of Redditch Local Plan No.4. Amongst other matters, these policies seek to ensure that new development contributes positively to the local character of the area and is of a high quality design. Other Matters 10. The appellant has indicated that the site needs to be secured to provide a safe environment for the existing occupier who has a long-term health condition. However, no supporting evidence has been provided. Even if these personal circumstances were accepted, I consider the site could be secured in a more sensitive manner that does not require the removal of the existing boundary treatment. Conclusion 11. 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 indicate that the development should be determined otherwise than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. Andrew Fulford INSPECTOR