For a new front boundary walls and fences, sliding electric gate and minor soft landscaping alterations

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 20 May 2026 by Philip Willmer BSc Dip Arch RIBA an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 11 June 2026 Appeal Ref: 6006751 100 Tolmers Road, Cuffley, Potters Bar, Hertfordshire, EN6 4JJ. • 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 Ibrahim Bekir against the decision of Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council. • The application Ref is 6/2025/2454/HOUSE. • The development proposed is for a new front boundary walls and fences, sliding electric gate and minor soft landscaping alterations. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. I consider the main issue to be the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and the wider street scene. Reasons 3. The appeal property, 100 Tolmers Road is a large two-storey detached dwelling on a relatively large garden plot. The house as designed has a strong arts and crafts style comprising white rendered wall, steep pitched plain tiled roofs, hipped roof dormers, projecting bay windows and semi-circular brick arched doorway. 4. The house is set back from the road to provide a front drive with two points of access/egress from the road and carparking. The site boundary to the road currently comprises mature soft landscaping and a wide grass verge. 5. The appellant proposes the construction of a new boundary wall with two sets of electric gates along with alterations to the existing soft landscaping to the site boundary. The new wall would return along the eastern boundary of the plot. 6. The wall and piers would be set back about 5.4 meters or so from the highway and would be built of facing bricks to match the house. 1.2 high x 1.8 wide metres dark grey panels would be set between the brick piers. 7. The existing soft landscaping to the boundary would generally be retained and supplemented with a new hedge. However, this would all be behind the new wall. The area between the new wall and the back of the highway would be retained as lawn. Appeal Decision 6006751 2 8. In itself the design of the proposed new boundary wall would not be a poor design. However, due to its overtly contemporary design it would not reflect the design detailing or character and appearance of the host property. Accordingly, in this respect it would appear as a contrasting element and would therefore be visually prominent when viewed against the backdrop of the house. 9. As I observed on my site visit low boundary walls, with piers, infilled with open railings and planting are a common front boundary treatment in the area. That design, while providing security has resulted in a relatively visually open and verdant frontages. In contrast the proposed boundary wall would appear as a visually solid and impregnatable boundary in direct divergence from the established character of the more open and verdant frontage treatments of neighbouring properties. Further, by returning the wall back along the eastern boundary it would serve to further visually enclose the front garden area. 10. I conclude in respect of the main issue that the proposed boundary treatment would by contrasting with the both the design of the host property and the established character and appearance of the area appear so visually prominent as cause significant harm the setting of the host property, the street scene as well as the wider area. To allow it would therefore be contrary to the objectives of Policies SP1 and SP9 of the Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council Local Plan-2016-2036 (Adopted October 2023), Policy D2 of the Northaw and Cuffley Neighbourhood Plan 2022- 2036 and the National Planning Policy Framework as they relate to, along with other things, the requirement that development should deliver a high quality of design that fosters a positive sense of place. Other Matters 11. I note that the balance of soft landscaping would be maintained, the development would not impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers, there are no parking or highway safety concerns. Furthermore, I note that there have been no third-party objections to the proposal. However, the absence of harm is a neutral factor in my considerations and, as such, I have given these matters very little weight in my decision. Conclusion 12. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Philip Willmer INSPECTOR