Boundary wall and access at 4C Wilson Grove, Southsea

What was proposed

The application proposed rebuilding part of the boundary wall with pedestrian and vehicle gates, hardstanding, and a dropped kerb.

“The proposal is for the reconstruction of part of the boundary wall, to facilitate two new openings in the wall.”

“The dismissed scheme differs from the current proposals in that the majority of the boundary treatment to 4C Wilson Grove was to be a wrought iron gate with a vehicular access. The current proposals instead reinstate part of the brick boundary wall with provision of a pedestrian gate and a vehicular gate in timber-board, 1m high.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval, considering the revised proposal a reasonable response to the appeal and acceptable for heritage, highway safety and neighbouring properties.

“The Proposals are considered to be a reasoned and reasonable response to the previous appeal decision, addressing the Inspector's concerns over the extent of the front boundary which had been removed and the uncharacteristic frontage which would result. The proposals will preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, are acceptable in highway safety terms and in their impacts on neighbouring properties.”

“The scheme therefore complies with the Development Plan as a whole and is recommended for approval.”

Officer report

Objections and consultation

Nine representations were received, all objecting over highways, parking, conservation, design, neighbours, the site boundary and the dwelling’s increased dominance.

“Letters to adjoining properties were sent on 14.1.2026. Site Notices were erected outside the site and on adjoining roads on 21.01.2026.”

“Impact on highways, parking exists for the property in the form of a garage • Design and conservation concerns, impact on the conservation area specifically in its significance and visual amenity • Impact on residential amenity for neighbours • Queries on the red-line of the site, in that it does not include the garage. • Local refusals for similar schemes • The proposals are in contradiction to the conservation area guidance.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A deputation was made against the application, the applicant spoke in favour, and a councillor’s opposing deputation was read out.

Members debated the proposal

Members discussed the Inspector’s findings, loss of enclosure, the gates’ appearance, reversing safety, parking losses and the limited benefit of electric charging.

“Members had to note and be cognisant of what the Planning Inspector said whether they liked it or not. As in this case they had said it was important that all the houses kept the sense of enclosure, then removal of the wall detracted from that. The Inspector was clear that removing the wall would harm the conservation area.”

“If members considered there was an adverse impact due to the loss of sense of enclosure provided by the front boundary (the houses were built after the conservation area was created) this needed to be balanced against the public benefit by the creation of an off-road parking space thereby freeing up a public space in an over-subscribed area.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee refused the application because the harm from losing the front boundary’s sense of enclosure outweighed the benefit of an off-street parking space.

“RESOLVED that the application be refused as the adverse impact of the loss of sense of enclosure caused by the removal of the front boundary wall in a conservation area does not outweigh the benefits of providing an off-street parking space.”

Minutes