Appeal 3301210

The appeal is dismissed.

The perimeter fence has already been erected. I am therefore considering the appeal proposal on a retrospective basis.

The planning application drawings include a location plan with an area edged red referring to ‘location of new fence see attached detailed diagram’. This incorrectly relates to No. [address] and not to No. [site address] . The separately submitted red edged site location plan and accompanying fencing plans relate clearly to No. [site address] . Furthermore, I was able to see the position of the fencing on my site visit and this relates to No. [site address] . Notwithstanding the error, I have therefore determined this appeal based on the retrospective perimeter fence at No. [site address] and not No. [address].

The main issues are the effect of the development upon (i) the character and appearance of the area and (ii) highway safety.

The proposal relates to a solid wooden fence with concrete posts running alongside the pavement adjacent to No [site address] which is a detached bungalow positioned at the entrance to a cul-de-sac of dwellings. The immediate area, including [address], is characterised by a mixture of bungalows and two storey detached dwellings set within spacious plots and which are set back from main roads. Front amenity spaces are undeveloped and landscaped and in the main there is an absence of hard boundary treatment. These positive and distinctive characteristics given the area a uniform and pleasing spacious and green character.

Owing to the position, height and extent of the appeal fencing, I find that it significantly detracts from the aforementioned open plan pattern of development in the locality. It appears as a dominant, prominent and incongruous form of development when seen within the immediate locality and causes significant harm to the character and appearance of the area. While painting the fence may soften its harmful impact to some extent, this would not in itself overcome my concern relating to the harmful impact upon the open plan appearance of this area owing to its position, length and height.

The appellant has referred me to other examples of boundary fences in the wider area. However, I have determined this appeal based upon its impact upon the character and appearance of the immediate area, namely [address] and part of [address]. In this context, the fence appears incongruous within its immediate setting.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the development has caused significant harm to the character and appearance of the area. Consequently, it does not accord with the character, appearance and design requirements of policy 10 of the Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 1 [name] 2014, policy 1 of the Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2: Land and Planning Policies 2019 (LP2), and paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021 (the Framework).

Given the position and height of the fencing, it fails to provide acceptable pedestrian visibility for drivers manoeuvring from the driveway onto [address]. Visibility splays are deficient owing to the position and height of the fence, and in this regard, the development has an unacceptable impact upon highway safety.

The appellant has referred me to other fences in the area adjacent to driveways and where it is alleged that visibility is deficient. I do not know the exact circumstances which led to these fences being erected but, in any event, the existence of other fences which have the potential to cause accidents does not justify allowing the appeal development.

While the appellant has indicated that the other driveway associated with the appeal property would be used, I cannot guarantee that this would always be the case, or that any possible new owner of the dwelling would park in this way. I note the appellant’s suggestion of including a security light and CCTV, but this would not suitably overcome my concern about the potential for conflict between vehicles and pedestrians when the impacted driveway is in use. Appeal Ref: APP/P3040/D/22/3301210

For the above reasons, I conclude that the development causes unacceptable harm to highway safety and hence does not therefore accord with highway safety requirements of policy 1(2) of LP2 and paragraph 111 of the Framework.

I acknowledge that an occupant of the dwelling is disabled. I do not doubt that the fence provides a degree of privacy and safety particularly when the disabled occupant is unaccompanied. These are personal circumstances to which I afford weight in favour of the appeal. In considering this matter, I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty contained in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, which sets out the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation, and to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it. I have also had regard to rights conveyed in the Human Rights Act.

In this case, a refusal of planning permission is a necessary and proportionate approach to the legitimate aims of ensuring that the character and appearance of the area is safeguarded and that harm to highway safety is avoided. It is of course possible that privacy and/or security issues could be addressed by other less harmful options such as the provision of CCTV and/or some additional landscaping. I find that the protection of the public interest cannot be achieved by means that are less interfering with the disabled occupant’s human rights. Therefore, while I acknowledge there are some personal circumstances, I conclude that these are not matters that outweigh the harm that I have identified in terms of my conclusions on the main issues.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the development would not accord with the development plan for the area taken as a whole and there are no material considerations that indicate the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.