Appeal 3269496

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for an award of costs was made by [name] against Redditch Borough Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

A new version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published in July 2021. The new Framework echoes and reinforces policy relevant to the main issues in this case. I shall determine the appeal on this basis.

Various opinions have been expressed by parties about whether a change of use is proposed. The description of proposed development in the banner heading above is taken from the appeal form, and the Planning Officer’s Report to Planning Committee on 14 April 2021. This reflects the revision of the proposal’s description. For the purposes of this decision, I assess the proposal as being so described, which does not include change of use.

The main issues in this case are the effect of the proposal on: • The character and appearance of the area; • Living conditions of neighbouring residents, with particular regard to whether the metal fence would be overbearing, and privacy; and • Community safety and fear of crime.

The appeal site comprises a former [name] care home and its grounds. It is located within a mainly residential neighbourhood.

The grounds at the appeal site have a relatively verdant garden character, with established soft landscape including lawn, shrubs and trees. This has an assimilating influence within the residential neighbourhood context, where the proximity of dwellings to much of the appeal site’s perimeter is a striking characteristic.

The set-back of the proposed metal security fencing from the site perimeter, together with level changes, timber perimeter fencing, shrubs and trees on and in the vicinity of the site would go some way to limit the visibility of the proposed metal fence. Also, the fence would not have the spiky look of the examples of ‘aggressive’ fencing mentioned in paragraph 4.2.47 of the Borough of [name] Planning Document.

Nonetheless, the proposed 3m height, expanse and metal mesh ‘anti-climb’ security type of fencing would amount to a substantial vertical hard landscape addition, that would contrast awkwardly with and diminish the softer verdant, garden look and feel of the grounds. It would also discordantly draw attention to the contrast between the intensified secure institutional character of the intended mental health facility and the residential character of the surrounding neighbourhood. The elevated position of the appeal site in proximity to dwellings on [address] and [address] would further amplify the discordance that the proposed metal security fencing would articulate in the neighbourhood.

These impacts would be noticeable from various points in the neighbourhood, within the appeal site, from the publicly accessible path across the north-eastern corner of the site and from neighbouring residential properties on [address], [address] and [address].

No detailed landscaping proposal and management plan are before me, and I have no certainty that existing or potential future planting would be retained. Also, seasonal leaf fall and pruning is likely to limit the screening effect of such vegetation. Therefore, planting would not be a demonstrably reliable remedy to the adverse impacts identified.

The above together would result in the proposed development sitting uncomfortably within the residential context of the neighbourhood. I therefore conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. As such, it would conflict with Policies 39 and 40 of the Borough of Redditch Local Plan No.4 (LP), which together seek to ensure that, among other things, development complements and contributes positively to locally distinctive character.

For the reasons described above, the high, hard and intensified institutional appearance of the proposed metal mesh fencing would contrast awkwardly with the soft landscape garden characteristics of the grounds at the appeal site and the domestic character of adjoining residential properties. As a result, the proposal would appear overbearing to residents of neighbouring dwellings on [address]. Furthermore, the corridor of space between the proposed security fence and adjacent building complex may well result in patients overlooking habitable first-floor rear rooms of these neighbouring properties.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would harm the living conditions of neighbouring residents in terms of overbearing appearance and privacy. As such, it would conflict with Policies 39 and 40 of the LP, which together seek to ensure that, among other things, development makes places better for communities to live in.

Criterion vi) of Policy 40 of the LP expects development to encourage community safety, and design out vulnerability to crime. Also, paragraph 92 of the Framework sets out that development should aim to avoid quality of life or community cohesion being undermined by fear of crime.

Judging by the local concerns expressed, the location, extent, type and appearance of the proposed metal security fencing would amplify the community’s fear of patients absconding from the proposed unit.

Even if the proposal did not, in actuality, result in patients absconding and harming community safety, and so did not conflict with Criterion vi) of Policy 40 of the LP, it appears that the proposed metal security fencing would amplify a real and pronounced fear of crime in the neighbourhood. Consequently, the proposal would conflict with paragraph 92 of the Framework.

That the Planning Officer’s Report to Planning Committee recommended approval of the scheme does not alter the above specifics in relation to the main issues in this case, and my consequent findings.

The proposal would contribute to the provision of additional Children and [name] facilities in the area, with associated health and wellbeing benefits for patients and their families. The proposal would also provide some additional employment and economic benefit to the area during and after construction. That said, the analysis of health services’ guidelines for fencing1, and an alternative scheme submitted for the site2 together indicate that the height of the proposed metal fence may be in excess of that necessary to support the operation of the unit. This consideration limits the benefit of the scheme. Furthermore, the benefits of the proposal do not outweigh the significant totality of harm identified.

The proposed development would be contrary to the development plan and Framework, and there are no other considerations which outweigh this finding. Accordingly, for the reasons given, the appeal fails.