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 Mum caught driving with revoked license on school run gets car seized
- 2 Vicar's concerns over 'hugely vulnerable' rough sleepers
- 3 Police officer sacked for racially abusing colleague at Christmas party
- 4 Man in critical condition after single-vehicle crash
- 5 Cambridgeshire police officer dismissed after conduct hearing
- 6 Woman threatened for not wearing mask describes fear for safety
- 7 Rural crime police recover dog in ‘poor state’ while on site check
- 8 Police hunt homemade go-kart ‘causing anti-social behaviour’
- 9 Residents get chance to contribute to church's Bible project
- 10 Podcast revisits the mysterious missing case of Terry McSpadden
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.