Appeal 3277492

The appeal is dismissed.

Since the time the appeal was submitted, the revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) has been published in July 2021. My decision is made in the context of the revised Framework.

The main issues of the proposal are its effect on: • The character and appearance of the street scene; and • Highway and pedestrian safety.

The appeal property occupies a corner position within a cul-de-sac of other similar house types. The appeal site has a broader frontage than the others within the immediate street scene due to the side garden.

Low brick boundary walls are a unifying feature of the area with a broad combination of infill timber fences or hedges. Whilst there is no one consistent height seen locally, given the majority of the proposed enclosure at a height of approximately 1m 83cm, would appear uncharacteristically tall and visually exposed in this location with no relief from the solid mass of timber construction. Its obtrusiveness would be further pronounced due to its prominent position on a corner.

It would not be a sympathetic addition to the street scene and would detrimentally harm the character and appearance of the local area.

I appreciate the intentions of the appellant to secure the site and to make it as safe and private as possible for their family and pets, however, that is not to say that this could not be achieved by other means.

Therefore, to conclude, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the street scene contrary to Policies CS14 and CS15 of the [name] and Urban Core Plan (CSAUCP) and Policy MSGP24 of [name] for [name] 2021, and the [name] and Extensions Supplementary Planning Document in their combined design aims. In addition, the proposal would conflict with the Framework in its objectives to achieve well-designed places.

There is an existing vehicular gate adjacent to Number 29 Whitehill with hardstanding within the curtilage of the site. There is no internal space illustrated to turn a car around within the site, and therefore drivers would be likely to reverse onto the road.

Even if drivers where to exit the site in a forward gear, the height of the fence here would severely impair driver visibility. As there is a footpath outside the appeal site, this encourages pedestrians to use the footway. They would be at risk of reduced visibility as a consequence its height. It is not a through road, and any double parking that might occur within the cul-de-sac may consequentially reduce speeds, nevertheless, I find conflict would occur between vehicles and pedestrians.

To conclude on this main issue, the proposal would lead to a detrimental impact upon highway and pedestrian safety as a result of reduced driver and pedestrian visibility, contrary to the CSAUCP 2015 Policy CS13 and [name] for [name] 2021 policy MSGP15 and the [name] and Extensions Supplementary Planning Document in their combined highway safety aims. Finally, the proposal would conflict with the Framework in its aims to minimise conflict between pedestrians and vehicles.

Any complaints raised regarding the Council’s service should be referred to them in the first instance and is not within my scope to comment.

[name] have found the proposal to negatively impact upon the character and appearance of the street scene and lead to highway and pedestrian safety concerns, this is in conflict with the development plan taken as a whole. There are no material considerations that indicate the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given, I conclude that the appeal should not succeed. [planning inspector] INSPECTOR