Appeal 3325461

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal scheme has been partially constructed; this does not alter the way in which I assess its merits.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on a) the character and appearance of the locality and b) on the safety of pedestrians and road users.

The appeal property is a two-storey detached home recently re-modelled from a traditional suburban design to a more modern appearance. It lies within a cul-de-sac of generously proportioned properties which, in the main, have good sized gardens and all come together to create an established residential character and a pleasing spacious air with soft landscape a key part of this. The proposal is for front and side boundary walls in white painted render with railings in-between piers with parts of the scheme running up to over 2 metres in height.

I touch on the spaciousness of the locality above and one of the contributing factors to this is the largely open-to-view front gardens found on most properties. Low front boundaries and a variety of soft landscape towards the front and further into the plots leads to a ‘green scene’. This is added to by an undeveloped landscaped island in the central part of the road. The overall scene is verdant. Regrettably the appeal proposal is of marked incongruity to the pleasing visual qualities of the area. It is unduly strident and harsh being of too great a scale and jarring on the eye. The scheme is of excessive run and height, in bright non-traditional finish, and overly enclosing the frontage and impinging upon the public scene. This dominant development detracts from the inherent and pleasing character of the Close.

I appreciate that vehicles themselves, on the appeal property’s frontage, would be largely screened from view and that there has been works and further intention to include some soft landscape at parts of the perimeters. However, the fact remains that the vast majority of the frontage is shown to be hardstanding. The lack of ability to provide any significant planting to mirror the softer suburban scene found in most local front gardens is also of concern to me.

Policy CP12 of the City Plan Part One and Policies DM18 and DM21 of the City Plan Part Two (CP2) are relevant. Taken together and amongst other matters, these policies seek well designed and suitably scaled development that should protect the character, the visual quality and the local distinctiveness of an area, embody suitable materials, generally have architectural merit, and be of suitable design given local context. In all the circumstances I conclude that the appeal scheme would conflict with these planning policies. It would also run contrary to the relevant aesthetic objectives of the Council’s ‘SPD12’ document which looks in some detail at design guidance for alterations with the aim being to achieve good quality schemes.

The Council is concerned that the appeal scheme, by reason of the proposed height of the boundary and pillars at the front of the site, would be unsafe to pedestrians and road users because of inadequate visibility. The Appellant points to [address] being a cul-de-sac with a very low level of pedestrians and traffic movement and slow speeds due to the short stretch of the road. The case is made that the entrance to the site is wide and offers good visibility splays so that the likely hazards to pedestrians or other cars is very low.

I assess that this is a low trafficked stretch of road and footway for vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists; it is a relatively short cul-de-sac and cars will almost certainly not be driving fast. Nevertheless, I do not see these factors as reasons to set aside the sensible aim of securing a safe environment for when people are using the Close. Contrary to the Appellant’s opinion I observed the site entrance to be relatively narrow and I am in no doubt that the tall pillars in their positions would unduly impinge upon visibility for exiting motorists. There would also be some interference with clear visibility from the neighbouring driveway. The Council’s normal visibility requirements for the interface of a driveway with highway land would not seem overly onerous to me and in my opinion there should be compliance in this instance; I fail to see it as any special case. 10.In the circumstances I conclude that there would be conflict with CP2 Policy DM33 and pertinent parts of SPD12 which, taken together and amongst other matters, seek to secure safe environments for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicle users generally.