Family win right to keep a wall around their home that Fenland Council described as an ‘incongruous and overbearing feature’
PUBLISHED: 11:17 03 April 2017 | UPDATED: 11:31 03 April 2017
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.
“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”.
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.
If you value what this story gives you, please consider supporting the Wisbech Standard. Click the link in the orange box above for details.