Appeal 3319032

The appeal is dismissed.

I saw at the site visit that the gate and fence is already in place and as such consent is sought retrospectively. I have determined the appeal on this basis.

The main issue is the effect of the appeal scheme on the character and appearance of the appeal property and the wider area.

The appeal site consists of a modest residential property of a style and appearance that is typical of the area.

The fence is described by the appellant as ranging between 1.5m and 1.7m1 in height owing to the arched design. The appellant has referred to slim gaps between the fence boards, nonetheless I saw it appears largely as a solid barrier when viewed from the street.

The gate is described as being 1.95m high. I note that the gate incorporates design features, specifically a central vertical struct, to give the impression of two traditional opening gates, rather than the single sliding gate. However, I saw at the site visit that the gate appears as a wide and solid structure that is a prominent and incongruous feature in the street.

Within the surrounding area there is a wide variety of forms of boundary treatments, including low level open fencing, walls, hedges and some taller fencing. I saw that the gates to driveways on the street were of a tall but open design allowing views from the street into the front garden, thus reducing their visual prominence. 1 Paragraph 6.6 Statement of Case dated 15th March 2023

The appellant has referred to boundary treatments elsewhere in the immediate area around the appeal site. The presence of these boundary treatments does not persuade me as to the acceptability of the appeal scheme.

The combination of the height and solid appearance of the fence and the height, width and solid nature of the gate results in a visually prominent and incongruous feature that harms the character and appearance of the appeal property and the wider area.

Thus, I find that the appeal scheme is contrary to policy P10 of the [name], [name] GP5 and N25 of the Unitary Development Plan and policy HDG1 of the [name] that amongst other matters require that boundary treatments respect the character and appearance of the dwelling and locality.

I note that, as stated by the appellant, a gate and fence of the same design but with a reduced height of 1m would be allowed as permitted development. The appellant has referred to this as a fallback position. Even if I were to accept that there is a greater than theoretical possibility of this being implemented, such a fence and gate, by virtue of its reduced height and scale, would have a correspondingly reduced effect on the character and appearance of the area and as such, while a material consideration, I afford it only limited weight.

I note there has not been an objection on highway grounds and I have had regard to it in reaching my decision but I consider the absence of harm in this regard is neutral.

I do not consider these matters, singularly or cumulatively, outweigh the harm that I have identified previously.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.