Appeal 3286989

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site lies within a residential area which typically consists of two-storey semi-detached houses. The majority are setback from the road behind modest front gardens and enclosed by a mix of low boundary fences, walls and mature hedges. There are some limited examples of high walls and fencing to a number of boundaries within the estate.

The appeal property is located at the corner of [address] and [address]. Part of the property’s garden runs along [address] and this boundary has a low timber fence with a short section of hedging. This initial section of [address] is relatively short as it is bisected by [address]. The adjacent neighbouring property has a high close boarded timber boundary fence while the neighbours to the opposite side have low walling and mature hedge boundaries. The Council have advised that the neighbouring high fence does not have planning permission. The short road length, generally low boundary treatments and largely visible gardens, create an open and relatively spacious aspect.

The proposal would replace the low fence and hedge running along [address] with a 1.[address] boarded timber fence with a gate access. This would, due to its height, close boarded nature, and its direct abutment to the pavement, appear as a solid, stark and imposing feature in the street scene. The fence would be at odds with the generally low boundary treatments and less imposing hedging and would be, even if painted, visually dominant and an incongruous feature. This would harm the character and appearance of the area.

My attention has been drawn to a similar fence at [address] which was permitted by the Council (Ref 17/05865/FU). While this initially appears to be comparable to the proposal, it is evident that the decision, despite identified harm to character and appearance, involved a planning balance due to the occupants’ personal circumstances. Within the appeal documentation, reference is made to a disabled child/occupant. However, no details regarding the personal circumstances or need for the proposal have been provided by the appellant. It is therefore not demonstrated that the circumstances for this proposal would be similar to those at No 44. I have therefore given the similar fence little weight in my decision. In the absence of evidence on the personal circumstances present in this appeal, this would not outweigh the degree of harm I have found.

Consequently, I conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area and conflicts with Policy P10 of the Core Strategy Leeds Local Plan 2019, Policies GP5 and N25 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan Review 2006, the Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 2012 and the National Planning Policy Framework. Together and amongst other matters these policies seek to ensure development respects and enhances existing streets and is designed in a positive manner appropriate to the character of the area.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.