Appeal 3362971

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 main issue is effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host property and street scene.

The appeal site comprises a semi-detached dwelling set back within a prominent corner plot at the junction of [address] and [address].

It’s indicated that prior to the development taking place, the front site boundary to [address] was formed by a modest stone wall and metal gate, immediately behind which remains a mature hedge. This wall continued around the curved corner of the junction before stopping, whereas the hedge extends along the full side boundary to [address]. The taller replacement metal fence and gate has been erected in the same position and to the same length as the previous wall, and therefore primarily fronts [address].

At the time of my visit, I observed front boundary treatments along this section of [address] as predominantly taking the form of mature trees and hedges, often positioned behind unobtrusive low stone walls and wooden fences. The collective soft and natural appearance of residential property frontages along this arterial route contributes significantly to the well-established, verdant suburban character of the street scene. Owing to its metallic form and appearance, and its considerable height, the replacement fence and gate’s appearance is fundamentally at odds with this key positive feature of the locality, thereby detracting from its character through its inappropriate design.

I appreciate that the development has been painted dark green and has been topped with a trellis, but these interventions do not sufficiently soften the appearance of the replacement enclosure, which possesses an essentially modern and hard aesthetic that is unsympathetic to the age and character of the host dwelling and its environs. The harmful incompatibility of the development to its locality is furthermore compounded by its highly conspicuous positioning at the traffic light controlled junction with [address], and in doing so draws attention to it as an incongruous feature within the street scene.

On this basis, I conclude that the fence and gate have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the host property and street scene. The development conflicts with Policies GP5 and N25 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan Review 2006 and Policy P10 of the Leeds Local Plan Core Strategy 2014 (as amended 2019). These policies together set out that new development, including site boundary treatments, should be of a high-quality design that respects the character and quality of streets according to the distinctiveness of the local area.

Furthermore, the development would fail to comply with the [name] Planning Document 2012, which sets out that the height, material and style of new or replacement front boundary treatments should reflect local character.

The appellant’s evidence refers to the recent erection of a metal fence at a commercial premises opposite to the appeal site and also includes numerous examples of fences and gates on [address] and nearby Whinfield and Broomfield. Due to differences in appearance and location, I find that none of these developments replicates the specific circumstances of the appeal site and therefore provide a justification for the appeal scheme, which has been assessed on its own merits with regard to its effect upon the character and appearance of the host property and the [address] street scene, to which it principally faces.

I also note the appellant’s comments regarding damage to the previous wall from car accidents and the reduced likelihood of injury from impact with a fence. However, I see no reason why such a potential benefit could be achieved through an alternative enclosure which does not cause the harm identified above. Furthermore, whether or not there may have been a degree of local support for the scheme, this does not weigh in support of the appeal, the determination of which must be based on an assessment of the planning merits of the case.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I 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.