Appeal 3310306

The appeal is dismissed.

The fence and gates have been erected and therefore this is a retrospective proposal.

The main issues are the effect of the development on: - i) the character and appearance of the area and ii) highway safety.

Along this stretch of [address], the front boundaries are generally either open, enabling off-street parking, or comprise low-level boundary walls. The detached appeal property is set back from the road and has a paved frontage although there is no dropped kerb to the road.

The gates, subject to this appeal, are significantly taller than the boundary wall which they are positioned on either side of. While the appellant indicates that the vehicular gates are mostly left open this cannot be controlled and counters their desire for enclosure to ‘preserve the safety of children who play in the front yard’.

As set out in the Council’s supplementary planning document - [name] – a design guide for householders, front boundaries are important to the appearance of the street and boundary treatments can degrade the character.

The addition of the gates and fencing forms an inconsistent and unsympathetic front boundary with their height and form being out of keeping with the character of the area. I acknowledge that there are some close-boarded fences of a similar height at the junction with New Park Road/[address], however, I have no information on the background to these which the Council indicate appear to be unauthorised.

The appellant recognises that the fencing is not aesthetically appealing and indicates that they are keen to lower the side fence and/or plant hedging. A different form and scale of boundary treatment may be more appropriate, however, there are no specific details before me and in any event changes to the side fencing would not overcome the adverse impact of the gates on the street scene.

Consequently, I find that the development fails to accord with Policy CS41 of the Bournemouth Local Plan: [name] and the [name] guidance which together promote well-designed developments and spaces, and for proposals to respect the site and its surroundings.

The appeal site is a short distance from [address] which offers a range of retail/commercial facilities. The Council advise that it is a busy area, particularly during the summer months, and as I noted during my site visit [address] is used for parking and is also a bus route.

The gates are sited on the back edge of the pavement which restricts direct access to the frontage for parking and also conceals movement. There are no specific details of the visibility splays indicated on the plans but given the height and positioning of the fence/gates views of passing vehicles and pedestrians will be obstructed both from the appeal property and the neighbour’s drive (No.10A) which is immediately adjacent to the side fencing. Additionally, parking on the frontage of No.12 is only achieved by bumping up the kerb and therefore I cannot give it weight as an existing driveway.

As such, I find that the proposal fails to adequately ensure safe movements and would represent poor design contrary to Policies CS18 and CS41 of the Bournemouth Local Plan: [name]. It would also conflict with the aims of Paragraphs 110 and 112 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2021) which seek new development to provide safe and suitable access for all and to create safe and secure layouts minimising conflicts between traffic and pedestrians.

For the reasons set out and having regard to all other matters raised the appeal is dismissed.