Appeal 3298647

The appeal is dismissed.

As the description of development varies between the documents submitted for the purposes of this appeal, I have used the description from the Council’s decision notice, as this is the most accurate description of the development.

The appeal relates to an application for planning permission for development that has been implemented, therefore the application is retrospective, and I have determined the scheme accordingly.

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

The appeal property is located on the corner of [site address] with [address]. The fence that is the subject of this appeal has been installed on 3 sides of the property and at its highest point is just over 3 metres in height where it abuts the highway. The fence consists of vertical timber boarding above concrete gravel boards. These are retained between concrete posts that are approximately the same height as the fence. The apparent height of the fence is exacerbated by the change in levels between the appeal property and the highway at the junction of [site address] with [address], where the local topography and site conditions results in a drop to the highway from the appeal site of approximately 0.6 metres

Given the corner location, the position of the fence on the highway boundary and its height, the fence is very prominent in street views when approaching the property from both [site address] and [address].

There is no footway adjacent to the fence on [site address] and the fence sits on the highway boundary, directly adjacent to the carriageway. Combined with its height and appearance, this results in an unduly assertive presence that sits in harsh contrast with the otherwise verdant appearance and open character of [site address] . [address] the fence is adjacent to a narrow footway with a post-box, where its height results in it having a dominating and overbearing presence in the streetscene at this end of the road.

As a fence of this height and type is usually associated with commercial uses, it represents an incongruous intervention within the context of the surrounding area that is made up of predominantly detached housing and fields, where boundaries are generally defined by significantly shorter fences or hedges.

The height and position of the fence on the highway boundary, particularly as the carriageway is directly adjacent to the fence on [site address] , results in limited visibility for cyclists and vehicles entering [address] from [site address] from the direction of the appeal property. The same is true for cyclists, vehicles and pedestrians entering [site address] from [address]. Similarly, the visibility along [site address] of vehicles approaching from the direction of the appeal property is severely restricted for vehicles exiting the drive of the neighbouring property at 126 [site address] (No.126).

The appellant argues that the change in levels between the highway and the appeal site means that the addition of the fence makes no difference to visibility for vehicles existing [address] into [site address] . However, I find from my site visit that that the change in levels at the junction is not so great that it would on its own restrict the view for drivers of vehicles exiting [address] and would also have no effect on the views along [site address] for vehicles entering [address] or exiting No.126 into [site address] .

The fence is significantly above the recommended maximum height in such circumstances and does not provide for visibility splays that would allow for views of approaching vehicles. This results in restricted views of approaching vehicles, as identified above, which makes for an unsafe highway environment for pedestrians, cyclists and motorised vehicle users.

For the reasons given above I find that the development results in significant harm to the character and appearance of the local area and significant harm to the safety of the public highway. This is contrary to policies DP2, DP3 and DP7 of the Dartford Development Policies Plan (2017) and Sections 9 and 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which collectively seek to achieve well-designed places and safe and sustainable transport.

Although Dartford Borough Council refers to policies M1, M11 M16 and M17 of emerging Dartford Local Plan, this is currently being examined and I have only limited information on whether there are outstanding representations on some of these policies and no information on the nature of these outstanding representations where there are any. I have therefore given them only moderate weight in my consideration of this appeal and have relied on the policies in the existing adopted Dartford Development Policies Plan (2017) as detailed above.

For the reasons given above, the appeal is dismissed.