Appeal 3292831

The appeal is dismissed.

I saw at my site visit that the fence has already been constructed. I have no detailed drawings of the development before me therefore, I have considered the fencing as constructed at the appeal site.

The main issues are the effect of the development on (i) the character and appearance of the host property and the area, and (ii) the living conditions of No [address] [name] with particular regard to light and outlook.

The appeal property is a terraced house in the middle of a row of similar designed properties. The terraced row faces [name] with low walls adjacent to the street defining small courtyards in front of the houses. To the rear the properties have larger rear yards adjacent to [address] [name]. The rear yards are used variously for parking, storage of bins and as gardens. Many properties have changed or added additional height to the boundary treatment, and many have done so using fencing of various designs.

[address] [name] is a lit, narrow road which is a through route for vehicles and pedestrians. Opposite the terraced row the rear of ground floor commercial properties facing [address] border the street. Many of these commercial premises have been extended close to the road and others are enclosed by metal fencing.

The rear yard of the appeal property has been enclosed to a height said to be 2.[address] boarded fencing on top of a blockwork wall to the side boundary, and on top of a block and brick wall adjacent to [address] [name]. In principle the enclosure of the yard is not dissimilar to many along the terraced row and there is also a wide variety of means of enclosure visible from the road. However, the overall height of the fencing and the poorly constructed blockwork walling below it draws attention and detracts from the character and appearance of the host property and the street.

Consequently, the fencing is detrimental to the character and appearance of the host property and the area in conflict with Policy P10 of the Leeds City Council Local Plan [name] (as amended by the [name] 2019) adopted November 2014 and saved Policies GP5 and N25 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan Review 2006 (UDP), which collectively seek to ensure that development is of good design, appropriate to its location and the character of the area. The proposal also conflicts with Policy HDG1 of the [name] Planning Document (SPD) April 2012 which seeks to ensure that boundary treatment and materials are appropriate to the locality.

Further, the development is not consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework ( the Framework) in so far as it relates to the design of development.

The fencing is situated along the shared boundary with No [address] [name]. The neighbouring property does not have habitable room windows adjacent to the fence, and in addition, the orientation of the buildings and fence mean that there is unlikely to be a material loss of daylight or sunlight associated with the development.

Nonetheless, the boundary treatment is highly visible from the neighbour’s rear yard and is a dominant and overbearing feature. The overall height of the development and its close relationship to the neighbouring yard make it intrusive and detrimental to the outlook from the rear outside space of No 80.

Consequently, I conclude that the development is harmful to the living conditions of the occupants of No [address] [name] with particular regard to outlook. As such it conflicts with Policy P10 of the [name] and saved Policies GP5 and BD6 of the UDP where these policies seek to protect residential amenity. Nor does it accord with the SPD which seeks to protect the residential amenity of neighbours. Further, it does not comply with the Framework where it seeks to ensure development creates places with a high standard of amenity for existing users.

I have taken into account the appellant’s requirement for privacy in the rear garden area. In doing so I have had due regard to my responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010. I can appreciate that enclosing the rear area enables the appellant to use the space without being seen from the street or the neighbouring outside space. However, whilst I have sympathy with the appellants’ situation and needs, there is very little evidence to suggest that they could only be addressed in the form of the development before me. I do not, therefore, consider that these personal circumstances outweigh the harm identified above.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the fencing as constructed conflicts with the development plan and there are no material considerations, including the appellant’s personal circumstances, that would outweigh that conflict. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.