Full planning application for a 1 metre high wall with 1.2 metre columns without complying with a condition attached to planning permission Ref 25/0214 dated 25 September 2025

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 25 August 2026 by N Bromley BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 02 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6012828 32 Broadway West, Walsall WS1 4DZ • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) for the development of land without complying with conditions subject to which a previous planning permission was granted. • The appeal is made by Mr Masuk Miah against the decision of Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council. • The application Ref is 25/1344. • The application sought planning permission for full planning application for a 1 metre high wall with 1.2 metre columns without complying with a condition attached to planning permission Ref 25/0214 dated 25 September 2025. • The condition in dispute is No 2 which states that: The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the following approved plans details and documents: Planning Permission (Sheet Number. 06 Rev 06) received 01/09/25. • The reason given for the condition is: To ensure that the development undertaken under this permission shall not be otherwise than in accordance with the terms of the application on the basis of which planning permission is granted, (except in so far as other conditions may so require). Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. A new National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published on 17 August 2026. As the policy approach relevant to this appeal has not fundamentally changed, it has not been necessary for me to consult the main parties on it. I have had regard to the Framework in reaching my decision. Background and Main Issue 3. Planning permission was granted in September 2025 (the original planning permission) for a 1 metre high wall, with 1.2 metre high columns (the approved wall), on the front boundary of the appeal site. The proposal now seeks the variation of Condition 2 of the original planning permission to substitute the approved plan with an amended plan, which proposes a 1.8 metre high wall with 2 metre high columns. 4. Accordingly, the main issue in this appeal is the effect that the variation of Condition 2 would have on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 5. 32 Broadway West is a semi-detached house located along a busy road within an urban residential environment. Houses along the road are a mix of two storey semi-detached dwellings and small blocks of terrace properties. Many of the Appeal Decision 6012828 2 houses, including the appeal property, have front gardens and / or parking areas, set behind low level, front boundary walls. 6. Despite the street scene being dominated by frontage car parking, the road, with a wide carriageway, has an open, spacious character. The low-level boundary walls contribute to the open character of the road. Mature street trees along the road, as well as a small number of garden hedges, ensure that the street scene is attractive. 7. Compared to the existing front boundary wall, and the previously approved wall, the proposal would be taller. Located next to existing low-level walls to either side, the proposed wall, with a height of 1.8 metres and 2-metre high columns, would be a more noticeable and dominant structure, emphasised by its appearance and use of light-coloured render and dark grey slatted panels. 8. While no concerns are raised with the use of light-coloured render which, to some degree, is used on other walls and buildings locally, due to its height, the proposed wall would not sit comfortably alongside the existing low-level walls to either side and those other walls within this part of the street scene. Therefore, even though similar facing materials would still be used, due to its increased height and dominance, the proposed wall would be incongruous. 9. The proposal would also be markedly more harmful than a garden hedge on the site frontage, which would have a softer, and verdant appearance, even with a greater height. 10. Furthermore, although there are other walls and boundary treatments in the wider area, as documented by the appellant, some with a similar scale and appearance to the proposed wall, including a large wall on Alexander Road, they are located in areas that have a different character compared to the appeal site. Given this, these examples do not add weight in favour of the development. In any event, whilst I acknowledge that consistency of decision making is important to ensure public confidence, I am not bound by previous decisions of the Council, and I have exercised my own judgement on the appeal proposal. 11. Consequently, for the above reasons, the variation of Condition 2 would harm the character and appearance of the area. Therefore, the proposal would be contrary to Policies GP2 and ENV32 of the Walsall Unitary Development Plan 2005, and Policies CSP4, ENV2 and ENV3 of the Black Country Core Strategy 2011, which together and amongst other things, expect all development to make a positive contribution to the quality of the environment and seek to resist poorly designed developments. There would also be a similar conflict with the aims of Policy DW3 of the Designing Walsall Supplementary Planning Document. Other Matters 12. I acknowledge the appellants desire to have a taller front boundary wall, which would provide improved security and privacy benefits. There could also be enhanced long-term maintenance benefits, as well as safety and visibility improvements for the occupants of the property. However, there is no substantive evidence which demonstrates that a wall with a lower height would not secure similar purposes and benefits. Therefore, although no objections are raised in respect of highway safety, access and materials, the benefits of the proposal Appeal Decision 6012828 3 would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects of the development on the character and appearance of the area. Conclusion 13. The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed. N Bromley INSPECTOR