Appeal 3349014

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The description above is taken from the application form. The decision notice refers to the retrospective nature of the appeal that the appellant has confirmed. Given this matter is therefore not in dispute, I have considered the appeal accordingly.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site sits prominently on the street frontage, almost opposite the junction with [address]. Land levels rise steeply on Uppermoor away from the town centre. Properties are generally set back from the roadside and separated from the pavement by low stone walls and hedging which creates a pleasant sense of spaciousness and consistency which contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area.

The development sits above such a low stone wall, immediately adjacent to the roadside path, as well as extending along the side boundary between the appeal site and No 8 Uppermoor. The fencing steps up in irregular solid sheet like sections attempting to reflect the stepped heights of the wall and the rising land levels. The rectangular panels tower over the wall at a considerable additional height creating a substantial block that erodes the spacious feel of the site and the street scene. Further, the materials have a noticeable industrial appearance that is a stark and unacceptable contrast to the obviously more traditional stone walls and buildings that stand nearby. These effects are exacerbated by the positioning of the site opposite a junction and the rising land levels, combine to negatively draw the eye and, accordingly, cause harm to the character and appearance of the area.

The development is therefore contrary to Policy P10 of the Leeds City Council Core Strategy as amended 2019 and Policy N25 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan 2006 which are concerned with development being appropriate for its location amongst other things.

The scheme includes landscaping in front of the fencing that has not yet been carried out. However, given the appearance and substantial size of the fencing, the hedge planting proposed would not provide a sufficient cover to alleviate the harm that I have identified as a result of the development. Furthermore, there is limited space between the wall and the fencing which casts doubt over whether there would be room to facilitate the height of the planting that is proposed. It would also take some considerable time to properly establish and, in any case, obscuring inappropriate development would not make it acceptable.

For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme would conflict with the development plan and there are no sufficiently weighty material considerations to indicate a decision other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.