Appeal 3290440

The appeal is dismissed.

The effect of the development on: • the character and appearance of the streetscene. • highway safety.

From my site visit and on the basis of the evidence before me, the fencing has been completed and therefore the appeal seeks permission retrospectively.

The appeal property is situated on a prominent corner plot, fronting onto [address], with the side elevation facing [address], and is visible for some distance along [address] and [address]. While there are some examples of tall fences adjacent to the pavement in the estate, these are not seen with the appeal site. Properties in the adjacent streets are predominantly low brick walls, some with low fences on top and boundary hedging to the front. These low boundary features give the streetscene a pleasing, open feel.

Unlike any previous hedge that would have added to the verdancy of the streetscene, the height and length of the fence that wraps around the two roadside boundaries of the site, results in a large, harsh, obtrusive and incongruous feature in the street scene which is at odds with the prevailing character and can be seen in views from several nearby streets.

I conclude that the development harms the character and appearance of the streetscene and conflicts with the design and character protection aims of Policy CS15 of the [name] and Urban Core Plan for Gateshead and [site address] (2015) and Policies DM20 and DM23 of the [site address] Development and Allocations Plan (2020) and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

I appreciate that the widened driveway allows cars to be parked off street and that the users may reverse into the drive. Nevertheless, the position of the high fence either side of the driveway, severely restricts visibility along [address] for vehicles exiting both the drive of the host property and that of [address]. Even when leaving in a forward gear, the front of the car would be across parts of the pavement before the driver could see pedestrians approaching and vice versa. This results in an unacceptable risk to highway safety for the pedestrians using the footpath. I have no details of the size or position of the previous hedge at the site and so cannot be sure it would have the same effect as the fence now in place.

My attention has been drawn to other fences and vegetation in the area, that the appellant claims have a similar impact on highway safety. On my site visit I noticed a few examples of this due to overgrown vegetation. However, this is not a reason, on its own, to allow unacceptable development. I have considered this appeal proposal on its own merits and concluded that it would cause harm for the reasons set out above.

As such, it would be contrary to Policy CS13 of the [name] and Urban Core Plan for Gateshead and [site address] (2015) and Policy DM14 of the [site address] Development and Allocations Plan (2020) and the Framework, which together seek to secure safe pedestrian routes and minimise conflict between vehicles and other users.

Whilst there is a letter of support for the fence, a lack of opposition for a scheme is not a reason in itself to allow a development that is unacceptable.

The appeal scheme conflicts with the development plan. There are no material considerations worthy of sufficient weight that would indicate a decision other than in accordance with it. The appeal should therefore be dismissed.