Balcony, associated fencing, railing, planting. Lighting situated within the balcony area

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15 June 2026 by Martin H Seddon BSc MPhil DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date:18 June 2026 Appeal Ref: 6009035 Hillcrest, Sherwood Vale, Nottingham NG5 4EH • 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 Sattar against the decision of Nottingham City Council. • The application Ref is 26/00009/PFUL3. • The development proposed is balcony, associated fencing, railing, planting. Lighting situated within the balcony area. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the street scene and the effect on biodiversity. Preliminary Matter 3. The development was substantially complete prior to the application to the Council. Reasons 4. The appeal building is a two storey; double hip fronted dwelling located at a high level above the busy road of Sherwood Vale/ Winchester Street. The development includes a timber panelled screen fence that faces the road. the Council considers that the development has no adverse effect on the amenity of neighbours. I see no reason to disagree as the properties opposite the appeal site include single storey buildings used in connection with a garage and laundry. There is also an adequate separation distance from neighbouring dwellings with no significant impacts on the outlook, received sunlight or privacy of neighbours. Character and appearance 5. The appellant advises that an upper sitting area, patio, and steps have existed for many years at the site and demonstrate an established pattern of use at the upper level. In addition, the decking has been laid broadly in line with the existing ground levels of the seating area, with only minor localised levelling undertaken to create a safe and even surface. The appellant submits that as a result, the structure sits very close to the original landform and does not Appeal Decision 6009035 2 introduce any significant additional height beyond what previously existed at this level. 6. Although that may be the case, the timber screen fencing which has been erected for the balcony can be seen set back beyond a garage and a related stone structure. It may be viewed from the adjacent road by pedestrians and vehicle drivers approaching the bend in the road, and uphill from a westerly direction. At this point in the road the development is at a high level in a generally verdant setting, consistent with the wooded areas at Sherwood Vale, whereas lower down at Winchester Street dwellings are next to each other, and close to the road. 7. The panelled screen fencing appears obtrusive and out of scale in relation to the dwelling because of its height in an elevated position, extent, and use of materials. I accept that there are examples of timber fencing in the area, and that the screen fencing has not been finished. Although it could be treated to be more sympathetic to its surroundings, its height makes it overly prominent and out of character. 8. The appellant has advised that the proposal includes a live wall or green wall to be installed to the front of the panelling. However, it was apparent at my site inspection that a row of conifer trees had been planted at the front of the fence. Although these would be capable of screening views of the fence over time, they would fail to complement the character and appearance of the mix of tree and shrub species which exist at the locality. 9. I find that the panelled screen fencing which has been erected is significantly harmful to the character and appearance of the street scene. It conflicts with policy 10 of the Aligned Core Strategy (ACS) which seeks to ensure, amongst other things, that development makes a positive contribution to the public realm and sense of place. It also conflicts with policies DE1 and DE2 of the Nottingham City Council Local Plan Part 2 (LAPP) which indicate that development should respect and enhance the streetscape and be of high urban design quality and respect the local context. Biodiversity 10. The Council advises that construction of the development has involved the removal of trees and shrubs, thereby reducing the biodiversity and landscape quality of the appeal site. I have no details of the number of trees and vegetation which have been removed or the precise condition of the trees. I acknowledge the submission by the appellant’s gardener, but this neither comprises a professional tree condition report or ecological survey. The area of trees and shrubs removed would have been relatively small and not subject to a Tree Preservation Order. However, in principle the loss of habitat would conflict with policy 17 of the ACS and policies EN6 and EN7 of the LAPP which seek to protect and promote biodiversity and retain trees where possible. 11. The appellant has referred to the National Planning Policy Framework and the benefits of the development including making use of previously developed land, increased safety, use of local contractors and provision of an outdoor area that meets modern family needs. However, it does not represent sustainable development in environmental terms because of the visual harm caused by the high panelled screen fencing facing the road and loss of biodiversity. Appeal Decision 6009035 3 Other Matters 12. I acknowledge the Land Registry and boundary obligation, but it is insufficient justification for erecting the panelled screen fencing of the height and scale that has been erected facing the road. 13. The appellant considers that the Council appears to have treated the proposal as a single indivisible structure, rather than recognising that certain components could reasonably be implemented without express permission. However, the appellant has not defined which components would constitute permitted development. Conclusion 14. For the reasons given above, the development conflicts with the development plan as a whole and should be dismissed. Martin H Seddon INSPECTOR