Appeal 3312867

The appeal is dismissed.

From my visit and on the basis of the evidence before me, the fence has been erected. I have, therefore, dealt with the appeal on a retrospective basis.

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

[address] is within a residential area of semi-detached houses. The group of houses containing the appeal property are set back from the road with grass verges, trees, bollards, and pavement between. The houses are served by shared driveways set between each semi-detached pair. To the front of the houses are gardens or hard surfaced parking areas set behind, predominately, low fence or wall boundaries.

Outside the appeal site is a narrowed section of road which acts as traffic calming for the vehicle and pedestrian access to [name] on the opposite side of [address].

From my visit I saw other frontages along [address] with higher hedge boundaries. However, these mostly had wider accesses, no gates, or set-back gates. The green frontages, grass verges and low boundaries create an open and pleasant character to the area.

The fence which has been erected runs the full length of the frontage of the appeal property and down the side of the front garden, up to the gable end of the dwelling. It encloses the whole of the area to the front of the appeal property in a tall, close boarded, fence.

Given its height, length, and position directly on the back of the pavement, although the work has been carried out to a high standard, the fence is prominent in the street scene and forms an obtrusive and incongruous feature which is at odds with the prevailing character.

I, therefore, find that the development has an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area and conflicts with Policy DM10 of the Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council Local Plan Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD, 2016 (SADMP) which, amongst other matters, requires development to complement or enhance the character of the area.

Part 3, Section DG17 of the [name], 2022 (HDG) requires access points to be in line with Figure DG17 for the safety of all highway users. Figure DG17 sets the minimum visibility splays at 1m by 1m on both sides, unless there are local circumstances, such as the presence of a school, in which case 2m by 2m is required.

[name] is on the opposite side of [address] from the appeal site and, therefore, the 2m-by-2m visibility splay is recommended. The fence has been positioned within the visibility splay. Even if there have been no reports of conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles, the fence has the potential to cause conflict, which would be severely harmful to pedestrian safety, including the safety of school children.

For the above reasons I find that the development would have the potential for an adverse effect on pedestrian safety contrary to Policy DM17 of the SADMP which requires development to not have a significant adverse effect on highway safety and requires development to reflect the highway design standards set out in the most up to date guidance.

The proposal, therefore, also fails to meet the requirements in Figure DG17 of Part 3 of the NDG and would be contrary to paragraphs 110 and 111 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which seek to ensure safe and suitable access for all users and resist development which would have an unacceptable effect on highway safety.

The appellant has advised that the fence has been erected for security of vehicles and property. [name] have given the appellant’s personal circumstances careful consideration, I am mindful of the advice contained in Planning Practice Guidance1 that, in general, planning is concerned with land use in the public interest. I am mindful of the personal circumstances referred to by the appellant, however these factors are not sufficient to outweigh the harm that would be caused contrary to the development plan, the HDG and the Framework. 1 Paragraph 008 [name]: 21b-008-20140306 ‘what is a material planning consideration?’

For the reasons given above I have found that the proposal would be contrary to the development plan, when taken as a whole and the Framework. There are no other material considerations that would indicate that the proposal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.