Appeal 3374862

The appeal is dismissed.

I note that the development has already been carried out. The gate appears to have been constructed as shown on the plans before me, but for the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the appeal based on the submitted plans.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site is a residential property with an access onto [name]. Due to the sloping topography, [name] lies at a significantly higher level than the houses on [address]. There are many vehicular accesses on this side of [name] and several mostly modest sized garages set down from the road, including on the appeal site. There are some higher boundary hedges and some solid fences and gates set back from the road, including at [address]. However, the predominantly low boundary planting and small open fences, gaps between the set back garages and lower position of the houses give this side of [name] a largely open character with views across the [name].

Policy DM6 of the Council’s Development Management Document 2015 (DMD) seeks to protect the [name] openness and views across the river and requires proposals to accord with the development principles for the area. The site is within The Cinder Path Seafront Character Zone where the principles include protecting the open character and estuary views from [name]. An Article 4 direction1 removes permitted development rights for means of enclosure for most properties in [address] to protect the public views of the [name] from [name]. 1 Under Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended)

The Council’s Design and [name] 2009 recognises that boundary treatment is often a key element of local character and states that the enclosure of site boundaries must not be unduly prominent.

The proposed gate is around 1.8m high, extends across much of the site width and lies between the existing garage and the footway. Due to the slope down from the road, from [name] the gate appears no higher than the existing garages on the site and adjacent at [address]. Further, its cedar colour means that the gate does not appear as stark as some large white garage doors nearby.

However, because of its position, substantial width and solid construction, the proposed gate significantly encloses the site. This harms the open character of the area and interrupts views of the [name] from [name] between the existing garage and the neighbouring one at [address], particularly to those travelling eastbound.

Therefore, I conclude that the proposed development harms the character and appearance of the area. This is contrary to Policies KP2 and CP4 of the [name] 2007 and Policies DM1, DM3 and DM6 of the DMD. Together, these require developments to respect the local context and surroundings and the open character of [name], amongst other things.

The appellant indicates that the proposal provides security, but there is little to suggest that the provision of a large gate is the only means of achieving this. Therefore, I accord this matter limited weight.

For the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. The appeal is therefore dismissed.