Appeal 3293085

The appeal is dismissed.

I consider the main issues to be: the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area; and the effect of the proposal on highway safety.

The appeal site lies within a primarily residential area where front boundaries predominately comprise low level brick walls, fences, railings or soft landscaping. These front boundaries make a positive contribution to the characteristic openness of the frontages in the vicinity.

The proposed development is partially constructed with the pillars of some 2 metres in height already erected. The proposal includes bifold vehicular gates some 1.8m in height and 4.41m in width, which would open inwards. In addition, there would be a pedestrian gate some 1.83 metres in height and 0.9 metres in width.

The appeal property lies within a prominent location. Due to the height and prominent location of the pillars together with the height of the proposed gates and width of the proposed vehicular gates, I consider that the proposal would be an unacceptably incongruous addition to the streetscene. It would be in stark contrast to the characteristic low front boundary treatment and openness of the frontages. This would be to the detriment of the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The appeal property lies adjacent to the junction of [address] and [address]. [address] is classified as a [address]. At the time of my visit the volume of traffic was high and I see no reason to assume that this was unusual. The proposed gates would not be set back the recommended 6 metres minimum distance from the metalled carriageway edge. This would result in vehicles waiting in the [address] carriageway junction, while the gates were opened or closed. On such a busy road and so close to the junction with [address], there is a strong probability that this would lead to increased pedestrian and vehicular conflict, resulting in an unacceptable degree of hazard detrimental to the safety of both pedestrians and drivers. This would be to the detriment of highway safety.

In reaching my conclusion, I have had regard to all matters raised including examples of gates elsewhere. None is directly comparable to the proposal before me, which I have determined on its individual merits. I note concern regarding vandalism and security. These are material considerations. Nevertheless, such concerns should not be overcome by poor design.

For the reasons stated above, I conclude that the proposal would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area and on highway safety. Thus, the proposal would be contrary to Policy DM23 in the Chelmsford Local Plan (2020), where it seeks to ensure that new development respects the character and appearance of the surrounding area. I consider Policy DM23 to be broadly consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework, especially where the Framework seeks to ensure good design. In addition, the proposal would be contrary to the Framework where it seeks to ensure that development proposals do not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety.