Appeal 3312315

The appeal is dismissed.

The development was in place at the time of my visit and reflected the submitted details. For clarity, I have determined the appeal based on the plans before me.

The main issues are the effect of the appeal proposal on (i) the character and appearance of the area, and (ii) highway safety.

The appeal property is situated in a predominantly residential area that contains a mix of dwellings, both single and two storeys of varying designs. The properties are set back from the road, with their garden and driveway areas enclosed by varying boundary treatment, although low boundary walls, some of which have hedges above or those that are wholly formed of hedging predominate in the vicinity of the appeal site. I was able to see some properties with taller fencing, but these tended to be on return boundaries, where a side boundary to a property is adjacent to a highway. Nevertheless, despite the presence of these, the low boundaries and hedges to frontages, as well as planting within gardens, gives the area a spacious, verdant character.

The fence that forms part of this appeal is around 1.8m in height and extends along most of the frontage to [address] and [address], with similar height brick piers and gates forming the remainder of the property’s boundary to [address]. The height of this boundary treatment, including the horizontal slatted form of the fence, appears as an obtrusive feature that contrasts markedly with the softer, more naturalistic boundary treatment of other dwellings. The fence and other aspects of the boundary treatment extend for a considerable length in a prominent corner location, limiting views into the appeal property’s garden which has eroded the spacious character of the area.

I have had regard to the previous boundary treatment which stood on the appeal site. Although the height of this previous boundary is not clear from the information presented, the Council has stated that the previous fence was lower than the appeal scheme, at around 1.5m. In any event, from the photographs presented, the previous boundary fence existed along part of the appeal property’s boundary in combination with planting behind the fence that helped soften its appearance.

Concerns have been raised in relation to the impact on the [address]/[address] Conservation Area (Conservation Area). However, the Conservation Area is located to the west, beyond the neighbouring property, [address]. Although the appeal proposal is seen from [address] within the Conservation Area, given the separation and the angled nature of the views from it, I do not consider that it has any harmful impact on its setting.

Nevertheless, I conclude, for the reasons set out, that the appeal proposal has a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area. It therefore conflicts with [name] 1 and QE 7 of the Local Plan Core Strategy (Core

(SPD), which seek, amongst other matters, proposals that reinforce local distinctiveness and enhance the character and appearance of the local area. I have afforded the SPD significant weight given it is recent and intended to support the policies in the [name]. It also conflicts with paragraph 130 of the Framework which requires development to be sympathetic to local character. Although the refusal notice also references Core Strategy Policy QE 8, this relates to the historic environment where I have found no harm arising from the appeal proposal.

The Local Highway Authority has raised concerns on the location and height of the fence, stating that the minimum visibility splays of 2.4m x 25m are impeded by the fence subject of this appeal. From my site observations, the high boundary fence at the back edge of the footway limits visibility in the westerly direction for vehicles leaving [address]. This gives rise to an increased potential for conflict between traffic and other highway users.

I have taken account of the previous fence, but from the information available, I am unable to find that it had the same effect on visibility as the appeal proposal given the lower height of the previous fence and the precise extent and height of the now removed boundary vegetation is not clear.

Consequently, I conclude that the appeal proposal has an adverse impact on highway safety. It therefore conflicts with Policy QE 6 of the [name] and the SPD, which require, amongst other matters, development to provide adequate visibility splays and to not have an adverse impact on highway safety.

I note the appellant’s comments that the removal and replacement of the boundary treatment subject of this appeal with an alternative will have cost implications. I am however required to determine the appeal before me based on its planning merits.

For the reasons given above, having taken account of the development plan as a whole, along with all other relevant material considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, I conclude the appeal should be dismissed.