Appeal 6000755

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.

On my site visit I observed that the proposed development has been partially completed. I have therefore considered the submitted plans and what I have observed on site to make my recommendation.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on a) the character and appearance of the area; and b) highway safety.

The appeal site comprises a semi-detached property situated on a corner plot of a residential estate characterised by red brick properties. To the front of the property, there is a single driveway accessed via [address] and a sloping front garden which wraps around to the side which fronts onto [address]. The boundary treatments of comparable corner plots vary; however, I noted examples of soft landscaping and timber fences interspersed amongst the more common lack of any boundary treatment, lending the area an open and spacious character.

The appeal property is located in a built-up residential area. Within the vicinity, there is also a supermarket and a primary school, and whilst on site I observed both vehicles and pedestrians moving around the area on a regular basis. Whilst the stretch of [address] immediately fronting the appeal site is a mainly straight road, [address] has a naturally sloping topography and features a curve in the road adjacent to the appeal site and its immediate neighbours.

The development as proposed is to incorporate the area of garden to the side, which is currently open, into the rear garden and completely enclose it. Access gates towards the rear of the plot would then allow for parking. I observed on my site visit that the wall has been constructed from breeze blocks, which is proposed to be finished in render, and the gates have not yet been installed.

The new wall as constructed replaces a previous wall constructed of red brick which matched the materials used in the host dwelling and those making up the residential surroundings. The loss of the landscaping between the boundary treatment and the highway creates a harsh juxtaposition which is in contrast to the soft and verdant treatments that are seen elsewhere in the area, and indeed at the corner plot immediately opposite.

Whilst there are examples of hedges and fences in the vicinity of a similar height to the proposal, such as at 206 and [address], I do not find these boundary treatments to be directly comparable to the appeal scheme in terms of materials used or impact on the street scene. Unlike other boundary treatments in the area, the proposed use of render to finish the proposed scheme would be discordant with materials of the established streetscape. In conjunction with the height and the sloping topography, this would render the development excessively prominent in the street scene.

The appellant has suggested that the materials could be conditioned to ensure that the wall was constructed in red brick to complement the surrounding dwellings and reduce the harm to the character and appearance of the area. However, regardless of whether this condition would be appropriate, it would not overcome the harm that I have found elsewhere within this scheme.

Therefore, the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area and thus would fail to comply with Policy DE1 of the Coventry City Council Local Plan (2017) (LP) which requires all development to respect and enhance their surroundings. It would also be contrary to the guidance contained within the Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2023) which advises boundary treatments should seek to positively contribute to the character of the street scene. It would also be contrary to Paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requiring development to be sympathetic to local character.

The appellant has presented a sketch as part of their appeal statement which suggests modifications to the wall as built. The modification would see the proposed gates set further back from the highway than is presented in the submitted plans. However, neither of these proposed plans demonstrates that the proposed vehicular access would have sufficient room for a vehicle to both enter and exit the appeal site in a forward gear. Undertaking either manoeuvre in a reverse gear would not allow for optimum levels of visibility, which would only be exacerbated given the height of the wall.

Moreover, no specific details of visibility splay have been provided for either scheme, and so therefore the safety of other users of the highway cannot be demonstrated. Whilst the proposal would not alter the geometry of the road, it is considered that the lack of visibility when entering and exiting the appeal site would be compounded by the bend on which the site sits, further reducing visibility of passing traffic and thereby increasing the risk of collisions. The lack of recorded collisions as indicated by CrashMap data does not remove this risk as a result of the introduction of the new wall.

The impact of development on highway safety for all users is an established planning principle, along with the need to minimise the scope for conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles. The proposed development, due to its height and positioning adjacent to the footway, would reduce visibility for vehicles entering and exiting [address], the neighbouring property, and thus further increase the risk of a vehicle coming into contact with either another vehicle, cyclist or pedestrian. Moreover, the introduction of the wall coupled with the bend of the road would also reduce visibility for occupiers of Nos 59 and [address] when manoeuvring their vehicles on and off their properties, thus increasing the risk of accidents.

The proposed development would therefore have a harmful effect on highway safety and thus fail to comply with Policies DE1 and AC3 of the LP which require car parking provision to meet parking standards and for development to respond to the physical context of the site. Furthermore, it fails to meet the test in Paragraph 116 of the NPPF which has regard to acceptable impact on highway safety.

The proposal would provide privacy and security for the appellant and their family. However, I am not persuaded that the proposed wall is the only way of achieving this. It is likely that there are alternative forms and positions of boundary treatment available that would meet these objectives, whilst better complementing the character and appearance of [address] and not having a harmful effect on highway safety. The harms identified materially outweigh the benefits for the appellant that would result from this particular boundary treatment.

The development would conflict with the development plan taken as a whole and material considerations do not indicate that the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan.

As a result, 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. [planning inspector] INSPECTOR