'Unacceptable' wall in plan for 238 new homes gets planning permission after appeal
A wall surrounding a development of 238 homes in Kelvedon, described by Braintree District Council as "unacceptable," has been allowed at appeal. The current method of enclosure around the boundary of the housing development land west of Kelvedon Station, Coggeshall Road, includes sections of brick screen walls approximately 1.8 metres in height along the southern boundary, punctuated by swathes of horizontal acoustic timber fencing.
The council highlighted that they consider the current means of enclosure "unacceptable." They say this would better suit Kelvedon High Street's common characteristics. A council statement said, "In response specifically to plans for wood panelling the acoustic fence boundary, this is unacceptable. Officers have consistently advised that the boundary treatment needs to be a brick wall. As a principle, the council seek a brick wall wherever a private space meets a publicly accessible one. As the car parks in question are at the rear there is a need for a secure and substantial boundary treatment."
Moreover, the inspector has said that "whilst not consistent in appearance, the current boundary treatment provides a suitable enclosure of the site, with the significant amount of timber panelling providing a softer appearance more representative of its open and natural surrounds".
Read more: Son was 'wrenched' from mum after Lakeside Shopping Centre murder
Read more: Locals slam plan to demolish Essex garden centre to build mobile homes
He added: "The larger and solid external sections of wall, piers and timber panels provide suitable levels of security, and they additionally provide screening and acoustic attenuation. The council have suggested that a brick wall could also provide acoustic mitigation. However, I have been presented with little evidence that the use of brick would provide the same or better attenuation than the current and specifically designed acoustic timber treatment.
"Consequently, the removal of condition 22 would not result in harm to the character and appearance of the area, as the proposed details would secure the satisfactory development of the site in terms of visual amenity."