Appeal 3316688

The appeal is dismissed.

At my site visit, I saw that the development has been completed and I note that the application has been submitted retrospectively.

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

The appeal site relates to a detached chalet bungalow on [address] with off-street parking to the front. The immediate vicinity is predominantly residential in nature, and comprises mainly two-storey detached and semi-detached houses.

In general, front boundary treatments along [address] are low level in nature, comprising brick walls, fencing, mature hedgerows and trees. There are other tall solid boundary treatments in the vicinity, for example near the junction with [address], however these serve to enclose the side garden areas of their respective properties; they are the exception within the street scene rather than the rule. _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

The new boundary fence and gates are particularly prominent within the context of the vicinity, being situated on the outside of a bend in the highway and visible from a considerable distance when approaching along [address] in a broadly north-easterly direction. The scheme is of a solid appearance and spans a significant proportion of the site frontage.

Abutting the public footpath of [address], there is no space for planting to the fore to soften or screen the development. In my view, the gates and fence introduce harsh and urbanising features to the street scene, and appear incongruous within the context of the vicinity. I do not consider that the discordant nature of the proposals could be softened through painting or staining.

I sympathise with the appellant's personal circumstances and note that the scheme would improve safety and security from the adjacent alleyway. I also recognise that the site does not fall within a conservation area, does not comprise a designated heritage asset, and is not covered by any other landscape designations. However, these matters do not counterbalance the harm that I have identified above.

I am aware that a boundary fence up to a height of 1 metre could be constructed without the need for express planning permission, nevertheless to my mind this fallback position does not justify the height and extent of the development before me.

Consequently, I conclude that the proposal would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area. It would be contrary to Policy QD02 of the Thanet District Council Local Plan July 2020, which seeks to secure new development of acceptable scale and appearance. It would also be inconsistent with the advice in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which states that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development.

The Council argues that appropriate pedestrian visibility splays would not be achieved at the site’s entrance with the fencing, and as such there will be limited visibility towards [address] which could impact highway safety to both pedestrians and vehicles. I acknowledge that a vehicle emerging from the site with the driver having restricted views of footway users is an obvious safety hazard.

However, that prospect would be little different to the current accesses to other properties in the surrounds. Given the infrequency and short duration of such manoeuvres, the low speeds involved and the width of the footway outside the appeal property, I consider that the safety of pedestrians would not be unduly compromised in this particular instance. Furthermore, there is no evidence that any incidents involving vehicles and pedestrians have been recently reported in the locale.

I therefore conclude that the scheme does not cause an adverse effect on highway safety. It is consistent with the advice the Framework, which seeks to ensure that development does not have an unacceptable impact on highway

Having regard to the above and all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed.