Family win right to keep a wall around their home that Fenland Council described as an ‘incongruous and overbearing feature’
- Credit: Archant
A Government inspector has overturned a ruling by Fenland District Council and allowed a Leverington family to retain a 1.75m high brick wall around their home that they put up in October 2015 to replace a conifer hedge.
The council’s refusal to allow retrospective planning permission for the wall was challenged by home owner Lawrence Caddenham of Jondy, Church End, and now planning inspector Nick Palmer has ruled in the family’s favour.
Mr Palmer said the main issue is the effect of the wall on the character and appearance of the area.
He concluded that although the wall may be higher than other fronts and walls and fences in the area “this difference is not excessive”.
He said:” The piers create relief and reduce its apparent scale and the bungalow remains visible above the wall.
You may also want to watch:
“For these reasons I find that the height and scale of the wall are not excessive and that interest in the street scene is maintained.
“While the wall is prominent when approaching along Church End, it is not unduly dominant or out character given the varied pattern of development”.
- 1 Rings End A141 closed after three vehicle collision
- 2 Pictures show cars - including Tesco delivery vans - queued at fuel pumps
- 3 Former mayor begins court battle to retain pub
- 4 Former mayor Aigars Balsevics must wait for verdict on pub fate
- 5 47-home estate 'beggars belief' says councillor
- 6 Showcase status for Academy
- 7 Crisis, what crisis? Panic buying at the pumps in Fenland
- 8 ‘From street dog to show champion’ - how Toby rescued his family
- 9 Drug free, drink free BMW driver crashes into wall
- 10 Motorcyclist dies in A141 crash
Mr Fisher said the design is of an appropriate quality and the brickwork appears to match that of the bungalows.
One neighbour queried whether visibility suffered for drivers emerging from the access road to the site of the site. However the inspector said the Highways Agency had raised no specific objection.
Grahame Seaton, the design and planning consultant for the Caddenhams, said the family did not realise that planning was required for the wall as they had met and agreed the position to the wall and bollards with a highways representative.
And he argued that the family felt the wall enhances the street scene rather than being detrimental to the character of the area.
Fenland planners argued it introduced a “discordant element” into the street scene and described it as an “incongruous and overbearing feature”. They had threatened compliance proceedings.