Increase in height of boundary wall with a maximum height of 2m (Retrospective)

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 27 July 2026 by P Hatch BA (Hons) Ad. Dip MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 17th August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6011369 19 Somerton Drive, Hatfield Woodhouse, Doncaster DN7 6NQ • 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 Mr Michal Walaszek against the decision of City of Doncaster Council. • The application Ref is 26/00129/FUL. • The development proposed is the increase in height of boundary wall with a maximum height of 2m (Retrospective). Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. For clarity and certainty, I have used the description of development given on the Council’s Decision Notice in the banner heading above. 3. Retrospective consent is sought for the development, and I saw at my site visit that the boundary wall was constructed. Whilst its height appears to accord with the plans before me, parts of the upper wall were finished in block work. For the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the appeal based on those plans. Main Issues 4. The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the development on: • the character and appearance of the surrounding area; • highway safety, with particular reference to pedestrian visibility; and • the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular reference to outlook. Reasons Character and Appearance 5. The appeal property is a single storey bungalow which is prominently positioned on the junction of two spurs of Somerton Drive. The frontage of properties on Somerton Drive generally consists of low-level brick walls which on occasion include additional planting in the form of low-level hedgerows or shrubbery. These boundary treatments have ensured that a general sense of openness is retained to the frontage of properties when viewed from the street. Appeal Decision 6011369 2 6. The development at the appeal property consists of a boundary wall which wraps around two sides of its curtilage. It has supplemented a previous brick boundary wall which, particularly in regard to height, was less substantial in structure. The wall has a height of approximately 2m and is constructed from a mix of brick and breeze blocks and includes gated access for both vehicles and pedestrians. 7. The boundary wall, by virtue of its height and its continuous length, represents a significant addition to the street scene of Somerton Drive. The prominence of the wall is further exacerbated by the positioning of the appeal site as a corner plot which generates wide ranging views of the wall along the street, particularly when approaching the appeal site from the East. The scale and massing of the wall and its prominence within the street scene result in a loss of openness, as previously described, and appears as a highly incongruous and harmful addition to the wider character of the area. 8. The appellant has drawn my attention to other examples of boundary treatment within the vicinity of the appeal site, including properties at Nos. 8, 14, 22, 27 and 39 Somerton Drive, 1 Main Street and 6 Warwick Road. However, I noted that many of these have very different relationships with their surroundings, specifically in terms of the length of their frontages, their prominence within the street scene or are located in areas which have a greater sense of enclosure. Moreover, as I have limited details of these schemes before me, I cannot be certain under what circumstances they were erected. Therefore, I have considered the scheme before me on its own planning merits. 9. I also note that it is the appellant’s intention to finish the wall with render, a requirement of which could be secured through the imposition of a planning condition. However, the finishing of the wall in a more consistent material will not alter the impact of the wall in regard to its scale and massing which I believe to be the determinative factors in this issue. 10. As a result, I conclude that the development, by virtue of its scale and massing, is obtrusive and visually discordant with the wider street scene and the broader pattern of development found on Somerton Drive, causing harm to the wider character of the area. The development is therefore contrary to Policies 41, 42 and 44 of the Doncaster Local Plan (DLP) (2021) which seeks, amongst other things, to promote good urban design and respond positively to its context, setting and existing site features and respect and enhance the character of the locality. Highway Safety 11. The access to the appeal property is taken from the cul-de-sac spur of Somerton Drive. The cul-de-sac is made up of five residential properties including the appeal property itself with No.27 Somerton Drive also benefiting from vehicular access off the cul-de-sac. I noted during my site visit the presence of an off-street footpath at the end of the cul-de-sac although it was not clear whether this formed a public right of way. 12. The boundary wall includes a gated access for vehicles and a separate gated pedestrian access. The gates are flanked by large brick pillars with additional stone plinth detailing, these pillars project upwards beyond the 2m height of the surrounding wall. Appeal Decision 6011369 3 13. The South Yorkshire Residential Design Guide (SYRDG) provides guidance on levels of visibility required from private driveways. It indicates that splays of 2m x 2m may be required where a private drive joins a footway and that they should be kept clear of obstructions of over 900mm in height. The SYRDG goes on to state that the design of the splay should take account of factors such as, amongst other matters, the frequency of vehicle movements, the amount of pedestrian activity and the width of the footway. 14. The appellant believes that the height of the current wall is not materially different to the previous boundary treatment. However, it is clear from the submitted information that the height of the new wall, particularly in its relation to the vehicular access, is materially different to the previous boundary treatment in regard to the additional height generated. As a result, the new wall acts as a significant visual barrier to both drivers exiting the property and pedestrian passers-by. 15. From a driver’s perspective, any views of the public highway, including the pavement, are restricted until such a point where the vehicle is projecting significantly into the public footpath. From a pedestrian’s perspective, any passers- by may not be aware of the presence of manoeuvring vehicles exiting the appeal property. Whilst I recognise the nature of the road as a cul-de-sac, pedestrian access to and from the properties coupled with the use of the footpath at the end of the street, would still result in a notable amount of pedestrian activity to the frontage of the appeal property. Consequently, the lack of visibility described has the potential to bring pedestrians into conflict with vehicle movements, posing a risk to highway safety and is not reflective of the ambitions of the SYRDG. 16. The appellant suggests that the area is characterised by low traffic speeds and movements, nor have there been any recorded accidents in the vicinity of the appeal property. Furthermore, the appellant suggests that there are similar boundary treatments nearby impacting upon visibility. However, such matters are not sufficient justification to support the ongoing access arrangements if they pose a notable risk to highway safety, whether that be to other road users or, in this case, pedestrians passers-by. 17. I have noted from the Council that amended plans could have been requested as part of the application process which could have included amendments to bring the proposal into line with the ambitions of the SYRDG. However, this was not requested by the Council due to the other suggested conflicts with the development plan. Whilst I would recognise that amendments could have been asked for by the Council and submitted by the applicant as part of the application process, this did not occur and, consequently, I must determine this appeal based on the plans before me. 18. The appellant has suggested that such amendments could have been addressed through the imposition of a planning condition requesting the submission and implementation of visibility improvements. Whilst I have considered this approach, without being presented with the necessary evidence in the first instance in the form of amended plans it is not clear whether such conditions would meet the tests set out in paragraph 57 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). 19. As a result, the proposal is contrary to Policies 9, 41 and 42 of the DLP which state that development should, amongst other things, not have an unacceptable impact Appeal Decision 6011369 4 on highway safety, promote positive urban design and function positively with the surrounding area. Living Conditions 20. The boundary wall wraps around the appeal property and forms part of the common boundary with the adjacent properties of Nos.17 and 21 Somerton Drive. 21. Both properties include existing boundary treatments, such as timber fencing and natural features which appear to pre-date the installation of the boundary wall. During my site visit I was able to observe that these features were able to provide sufficient screening for both properties. In the context of these existing features, the development does not substantially alter the outlook for the occupants of either property and consequently I find no harm to their living conditions in that respect. Similarly, given the distances across the road, I do not find harm to the outlook of occupiers of other properties that surround the site. 22. As a result, the development is consistent with Policy 44 of the DLP which expects new development to protect existing amenity and not significantly impact on the living conditions or privacy of neighbours. Other Matters 23. The appellant has indicated that the boundary wall has afforded their property enhanced privacy and security which they believe to be particularly important given the nature of their corner plot. They have also highlighted the submission of two letters of support in favour of the development. However, in the absence of further substantive evidence demonstrating that the previous boundary treatment provided insufficient privacy and security. I afford these matters limited weight in favour of the appeal. 24. My attention has been drawn to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), in particular to the presumption in favour of sustainable development, the need to approve proposals wherever possible, economic benefits from the development, social benefits and making an effective use of previously developed land. Notwithstanding, the development is contrary to the provisions of the Framework that seek to achieve well-designed places and prevent or refuse development that has an unacceptable impact on highway safety. Conclusion 25. I conclude that the proposal conflicts with the development plan, when read as a whole, and there are no other considerations, including the Framework, that outweigh that harm. The appeal is therefore dismissed. P Hatch INSPECTOR