Planning Application No UPT/19316/5 09/02158/FUL
Location – Fieldside Cottage, Fieldside
Application – Proposed vehicular access and external boundary wall (retrospective)
Applicant – Mr B Belcher
Application Date – 28th January 2010
Parish Council Reply: The PC object to this for the following reasons: Members of the Council reported at the Council meeting that they had received a large number of complaints and comments from parishioners about the wall all objecting to it on safety grounds and to its visual appearance.
The size, colour and construction of the wall are all totally out of keeping with the area. On grounds of safety it must be remembered that no vehicular access existed for the dwelling until it was purchased by the present owner, access to the plot was via 2 pedestrian gates. It is unsafe to allow vehicular access on the inside of such a sharp bend in the road and no permission for vehicular access should ever have been granted for this dwelling. If access is to be granted it is essential that visibility is opened up across the corner by reducing the wall height to no more than 0.8m and by the cutting back of the boundary hedge to the same height. It is essential that cars and bicycles travelling in a south/west direction can see and be seen as they enter the bend. It should be noted that the Didcot to Wantage cycleway joins the road at the entry to the bend. Added to this there are no pavements in the village. It is noted that at the moment both visibility splays are well short of what the Council understands to be the minimum distance.
The corner has always been a hazard, it is now an extreme hazard due to the hedge being allowed to grow unchecked and due to the construction of the wall.
The Council is prepared to accept a 0.8m high brick wall right around the corner to the border with the neighbouring property and ask in the interest of safety that shrubs should not be grown inside or outside the boundary wall that will impair a clear view across the corner.
The Council understands the Highways Authority originally objected to the wall and the new access.
District Council Decision – Permission refused
1. In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the boundary wall on the western side of the site appears visually obtrusive and out of place within the street scene. As such the development is contrary to Policy DC1 in the adopted Vale of White Horse Local Plan.
2. The boundary wall, as built, obstructs visibility in a northerly direction when exiting the site. As such the development is considered to compromise highway safety for users of both the access and the highway, and as such is contrary to Policy DC5 in the adopted Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2011.
The applicant appealed against the VWHDC’s decision.
The Planning Inspectorate dismissed the appeal following a site visit on 13th July 2010. The main issues are (1) the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area and (2) its effect on road safety in Fieldside.
Reasons
Fieldside Cottage occupies a corner plot and the boundary wall covers part of the western boundary. A longer stretch of boundary wall, to be constructed with facing brickwork, was indicated on approved plans for an extension to this dwelling. The wall as constructed and for which approval is now sought is built of blockwork with a light coloured dashed render.
In my view the boundary wall is a harsh and discordant feature in the streetscene, emphasised by its materials and colour and is not in keeping with the predominantly brick construction of Fieldside Cottage. Surrounding properties generally have a mixture of open fronts, hedges or lower fences of brick walls. Although White Cottage to the north has a rendered appearance, this is set back from the road and I saw no example in the area of a similar boundary wall to that in this appeal.
The submitted drawings show little if any space between the wall and the boundary of the property to provide landscaping in front of the wall and in any event such vegetation would be likely to restrict visibility at the access to the property.
I note the support from some local residents although the Parish Council refer to a large number of complaints against the visual appearance of the wall. Having regard to all these matters I consider that the development harms the character and appearance of the surrounding area and does not comply with Policy DC1 of the 2006 VWH Local Plan 2011.
An informative on the decision notice says that the Council’s highway safety objection would be overcome if part of the wall was removed as shown on the submitted plans. I saw that the work had been carried out and consider that there is now adequate visibility at this access.
However in view of the harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area I conclude that the appeal should not succeed.
Note
All drawings and other hard copy documents connected with the above application will be destroyed after 3 years.
For further information on this application visit www.whitehorsedc.gov.uk and click on Planning and Planning Applications using the above Ref.No.