Appeal 3291061

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The appeal site lies directly alongside The Green, an estate road which runs around [site address] Village Green, and is highly visible within the streetscene. The immediate locality is characterised by a sense of openness, with properties fronting onto The Green, which is reinforced by the predominant lack of built boundary features to the frontages of properties.

The appeal scheme seeks to erect a 1.2-metre-high railing along the property’s frontage, hard to the edge of the footway and stretching along a significant portion of the site, approximately 28 metres, far exceeding the length of the dwelling. While accepting that the railing would be visually permeable, allowing views through to the existing vegetation, it would nonetheless be an obvious and overly assertive visual element along the street. Its location directly alongside the footway would serve to unacceptably erode the softening provided by the open, but planted, frontage along the highway. It would therefore be a harmful addition, diminishing the currently characteristic openness of the locale.

I accept that within the vicinity of the appeal site there are examples of built boundary features, such as walls and timber fences, positioned in close proximity to the footway and the highway. However, I observed that these are generally positioned further along The Green, where there is less visual relationship with the village green itself. As such, they do not have the same effect as that which is proposed. As such, these examples do little to persuade me in favour of the proposal.

Despite my findings above, the railings would have little visual effect on the host dwelling. Views of the dwelling would be retained and as such there would be no harm to the property itself.

Accordingly, I find that the proposal, while not causing harm to the host property, would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. Thus, the scheme conflicts with policies 26 and 33 of the Horsham District Planning Framework, insofar as they seek to ensure that development is appropriate to its location and respects the character of an area.

I note the appellants comments in respect of being able to construct a means of enclosure to the front of the property as permitted development, without the need for planning permission, which could include a wall that could be more intrusive. However, there is nothing before me to show that such an occurrence is likely and, even if it were, it is unlikely to be of the same height as that which is proposed. As such, this matter is not sufficient to warrant allowing the appeal.

There is also reference to the development providing a clear distinction between private and public spaces. However, I find that sufficient distinction exists currently in this respect.

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