Appeal 6001030

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for erection of metal / composite sliding gate to front of driveway at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00318/FUL, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following

The development hereby permitted relates to the following approved plans: Location Plan (unreferenced); and 1522/03 ([name]).

At the time of my site visit, I observed that the gate had already been erected and I have determined the appeal on this basis. However, ‘retrospective’ as referred to in the application form and decision notice does not constitute an act of development. As such, I have amended the description in my decision to omit this wording.

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

The appeal property relates to a detached bungalow within a large corner plot, with vehicular access from [site address] . Most of the frontage is defined by a substantial hedgerow, positioned directly beside the pavement, which itself is separated from the highway by a wide grassed verge.

Boundary treatments along this part of [site address] are varied. Low boundary walls create a more open frontage to some properties, particularly on the opposite side of the highway, whilst taller hedgerows, garden trees and grassed verges contribute to the generally verdant character of the immediate area. Fencing is limited, though it is present in places, including along the appeal property’s side boundary with [address]. Where gates exist, they are typically lightweight metal structures rather than solid constructions.

The proposal relates to a large, solid sliding gate, with dark grey horizontal panels, that extends across the vehicular access. Although the gate is substantial and there are no similar examples close to the site, it occupies a small proportion of the appeal property’s frontage with [site address] . Its position, set back behind the hedgerow, also reduces its visibility in the wider street scene, even when viewed from short distances along the road.

The gate encloses the frontage of the appeal property and is similar in height to the adjacent hedgerow. The bungalow remains visible above the gate and, as a result, the proposal does not cause harm to its appearance or the contribution it makes to the street scene.

The combination of the existing tall hedgerow and the gate’s recessed position, together with the intervening grassed verge, means it does not appear unduly prominent or incongruous within the street scene. Its dark colour further helps it sit unobtrusively within its surroundings. Whilst some parts of the street scene feature more open frontages with low boundary treatments, this is not characteristic of the appeal property.

The general principles within the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document Extending your Home, require proposals to complement the architecture of the original property, and not be overly dominant or out of scale with its immediate context. For the reasons set out above, the proposal does not conflict with this guidance. Furthermore, it would accord with the provisions of section 12 of the Framework which seeks to ensure high quality and well-designed places.

I conclude that the proposal does not cause harm to the character and appearance of the appeal property or the surrounding area. It therefore complies with Policy CDMP3 of the Wyre Local Plan (2011-2031) which seeks to ensure that development is designed to respect or enhance the character of the area.

Representations have been made by the appellant to the effect that the development is necessary to secure the property for safeguarding purposes. They have set out that the best interests of the child must be treated as a primary consideration, under Article 3(1) of the [name] on the Rights of the Child. [name] have decided to allow the appeal and grant planning permission for the proposed development, there will be no interference with these rights.

An interested party has raised concerns about the design, necessity and practicality of the proposal. These matters are mostly addressed within the main issue. [name] have not found harm to the character and appearance of the appeal property or the surrounding area, the need for the gate, and whether the existing hedge would adequately secure the garden, are not determinative in this case. These considerations do not alter my overall conclusion.

I have not included the standard time limit condition as the development has already taken place. For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of certainty, I have imposed a condition requiring that the development relates to the approved plans.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.