Appeal 3287746

The appeal is dismissed.

I note the Section 2 - Publication Draft Local Plan June 2017. However, since there is no certainty that the policies within will be adopted in their current form, I attribute them limited weight.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the area; and • highway safety.

The site lies in an area characterised by detached and semi-detached dwellings with ample spacing and open countryside beyond such that the area has an attractive spacious rural feel. The dwellings in the surrounding area largely have either hedgerow or low-level brick walls fronting the highway such that they provide a soft boundary treatment which are integral to the pleasant rural character of the area.

Tall wooden fence panels on concrete gravel boards with concrete posts have been installed at the corner of the site fronting the highway and bridleway. Given its height, form and materials, the fence, particularly at the corner of the site where it is most visible, appears discordant and harsh against the rural feel of the area. I have considered a condition requiring the fence to be painted a colour to be agreed by the Council. However, since this would not alter the height and form of the fence, such a condition would not mitigate the discordant effect the fence has on the character and appearance of the area.

Consequently, the development unacceptably harms the character and appearance of the area. Therefore, it conflicts with Policies CS5 and CS8 of the [name] 2011 (CS) which together seek development outside development boundaries that would protect and enhance the landscape character of the countryside. The development also conflicts with Policies RLP18 and RLP90 of the Braintree District Local Plan Review, [name] 2005 (LPR) which together seek development that is in harmony with the countryside setting and reflect or enhance local distinctiveness.

The bridleway that leads to [address] is a narrow lane that leads from [site address] . The fence is slightly angled away from [site address] . I also note that large vehicles may have been entering and exiting the bridleway and the fence provides secure off-road parking. However, given the height and siting of the fence, vehicles exiting the bridleway have a restricted view of oncoming vehicles from the north along [site address] and vice versa. Therefore, the fence increases the risk of collision between vehicles and pedestrians as well as with oncoming traffic from the north, particularly given that the bridleway can only occupy one lane of vehicles which limits manoeuvrability. [name] note that the fence has replaced part of a hedge, since details of that part of the hedge are not before me, it has not altered my finding on this main issue.

Consequently, the development results in an unacceptable impact on highway safety. Therefore, it conflicts with Policy DM1 of the Development Management Policies February 2011 which seeks, among other things, that proposals will not create a significant potential risk or be detrimental to the safety of the highway network. It would also conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework in this particular respect.

I acknowledge that the Appellant did not realise that planning permission was necessary at the time the fence was erected. However, the scheme must be determined on its planning merits and this matter has not altered my overall

For the reasons given above, the development conflicts with the development plan as a whole and in the absence of material considerations to indicate otherwise, the appeal is dismissed.