Appeal 6001479

The appeal is dismissed insofar as it is related to the installation of a front garden wall/fence and electric gate.

The appeal is allowed insofar as it is related to the erection of a rear garden outbuilding and planning permission is granted for the erection of a rear garden outbuilding at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/0916/HSE, and the plans submitted with it, insofar as they are relevant to the part of the development hereby permitted and subject to the following condition:

The outbuilding hereby permitted shall not be used other than for purposes incidental to the dwelling known as [site address] .

The description of development has been taken from the decision notice which I note has also been used on the appeal statement as this more accurately describes the proposal. I have removed reference to retrospective as this is not an act of development.

The main issues in the appeal are:  the effect of the front boundary treatment on the character and appearance of the area;  the effect of the front boundary treatment on highway safety, and  the effect of the outbuilding on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with particular regard to light and outlook.

The appeal property is a two-storey semi-detached dwelling in a residential neighbourhood of similarly designed dwellings. The boundary treatment along [address] is predominantly characterised by hedgerows, which form a highly verdant and harmonious street scene; with a few properties having open frontages or low level brick walls. Where vehicular accesses exist, these are typically open, however, where gates are present they maintain high levels of visual permeability.

The previous boundary treatment, consisting of visually permeable metal railing gates approximately 1.4 metres in height with hedging either side, has been replaced with a solid electric gate and brick wall with tall brick piers and timber infill panels. Although the timber panels allow some views through, this is very limited. The solid nature of the gate, in combination with the wall and fence, creates a strong sense of enclosure across the entire frontage of the property that is not typical of the area.

Due to the combination of its overall height, design and materials, the front boundary enclosure and solid nature of the gate, appears as a starkly incongruous and dominant addition to the street scene. It is harmfully at odds with the prevailing verdant and less imposing boundary treatments in the vicinity, resulting in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area. The use of high-quality materials does not alter these findings.

Whilst boundary hedges in the area are of a similar height to the gate and wall/fence that has been erected, hedges are softer features and are reflective of the character and appearance of boundary treatment in the area unlike the boundary treatment that has been erected.

The appellant has suggested that supplementary planting could be positioned within the inner drive area. However, considering the electric gate slides open and given the height of the wall and fence, I am not persuaded that planting would have any meaningful softening effect or sufficiently mitigate against its harmful impacts.

The appellant has provided several examples of other means of enclosure in the area. The low level walls on [address] and at Nos 17 and [address] are not comparable, as they are all significantly lower in height and have no gates. [name] [address] have tall fencing between the properties, they all retain open frontages. I find none of the examples to be directly comparable with the development, and as such they do not justify the harmful development at the appeal site.

For the reasons above, I conclude that the boundary treatment has a significant adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area. It therefore conflicts with Policy SADM30 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Plan (2016) (SADMP) and Policy CS22 of [name] (2013) (CS) insofar as these seek high-quality design and for proposals to complement and improve the local character of the area in which it is located.

For the same reasons, the appeal proposal would conflict with the Framework, notably paragraph 135 c), which seek to ensure that developments are sympathetic to local character.

The guidance set out in the Hertfordshire County Council Place and Movement Planning and [name], requires gates to be set back from the edge of the highway by 6 metres. This is to allow for parking in front of the gates, thereby avoiding conflict to other highway users whilst the gates are being opened.

The electric gate is positioned adjacent to the highway with very little setback. This would necessitate vehicles intending to park on the drive to wait either on the road or partly across the road and footway, whilst the electric gate slides open.

[address] is a 30mph residential side street where vehicles would be typically driving at a low speed with limited traffic movement. Although the gate would cause a delay for vehicles entering the drive, given the relatively short width of the access, any delay would be brief and only marginally longer than if the driveway was already open. I am not persuaded that this would detrimentally impede the flow of vehicles or pedestrians. As the road fronting the property is straight, I am satisfied that other road users approaching from Battlers Green Drive or from further around [address] would have sufficient time to see a vehicle waiting to turn into the drive, such that it would not pose an unacceptable risk to highway or pedestrian safety.

Concern has also been raised regarding the height of the boundary wall and its effect on the visibility of oncoming pedestrians, as the height of the wall exceeds the recommended 0.6 metres. However, many driveways on the road feature dense hedging taller than 0.6 metres either side of their respective accesses. I am not aware of any previous accidents having arisen on the road because of this, or at the appeal site itself. Moreover, the wall features timber panelling with small gaps in between which would improve visibility compared to the previous boundary treatment. Drawing the above together, I find that the height of the boundary treatment would not, in itself, result in an unacceptable or severe impact on highway safety.

For the reasons above, I conclude that the boundary treatment does not have an adverse effect on highway safety. It therefore accords with Policy CS25 of the CS and Policy SADM40 of the SADMP insofar as these require development proposals to not harm the safety of highway users or unduly harm the flow of vehicles.

The outbuilding has been constructed at the very rear of the back garden. Whilst the submitted plans specify a flat-roofed structure with a height of 2.8 metres, the Council confirms that following a site visit, the actual height as built is 3 metres.

Permission was previously granted1 for an outbuilding in this location with a total height of 2.8 metres and an eaves height of 2.4 metres. The principle of an outbuilding in this location has therefore been accepted. As the outbuilding constructed occupies the same footprint as the previously approved scheme, the 1 Ref: 24/0077/HSE main consideration is whether the additional height is materially harmful to the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers.

The outbuilding is positioned close to the shared boundaries of Nos 4, 12 and [address]. From the rear of Nos 4 and 14, the outbuilding is visible in oblique views towards the end of their gardens. The significant depth of these rear gardens ensures that the outbuilding is sufficiently far away, such that it does not appear overbearing, and that any overshadowing would not have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of these properties.

No 12 has the smallest garden of the three neighbours; however, it is nevertheless still of a modest size. The outbuilding spans approximately half of No 12’s rear boundary and is highly visible above the existing boundary fence. However, it is partially obscured by an existing garden structure within the garden of No 12, and a relatively open outlook remains across the remainder of its rear boundary.

The appeal outbuilding is situated approximately 8 metres from the rear of one of No 12’s single-storey extensions. The outlook from this extension is towards the existing garden structure at No 12, which partially obscures the outbuilding at No

The main rear elevation of No 12 is over 14 metres from the outbuilding at No 6.

Given the flat-roof design of the outbuilding and the separation distances involved, I do not consider the height of the outbuilding leads to a materially harmful reduction in outlook for the occupiers of No 12. Nor does it have an overbearing presence, as its scale and bulk is tempered by the flat-roof form. Although no sunlight or daylight report has been submitted, and whilst it is sited south of No 12, I am satisfied, given the height of the outbuilding and the separation distances involved, that any additional overshadowing would be limited. Any impact would remain towards the rear of the garden of No 12, with the large patio area closest to the rear elevation of No 12 and the rear habitable room windows unaffected.

For the reasons above, I conclude that the outbuilding does not have an adverse effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with particular regard to light and outlook. It therefore accords with Policy CS22 of the CS and Policy SADM30 of the SADMP which, read together, seek high quality design by limiting the impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers in terms of outlook, privacy, light, nuisance and pollution.

In relation to the front wall/fence, I acknowledge the appellants’ desire to improve privacy and security within the site as a result of property crime in the area. However, these benefits, important as they are, do not outweigh the harmful visual effects and I am also not persuaded that what has been erected is the only way of achieving such aims.

I have found that the front boundary treatment, including electric gate, would not have an adverse effect on highway safety, however this does not outweigh the harm that I have identified to the character and appearance of the area.

I have found that the rear outbuilding does not have an adverse effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. Since the front wall/gate and the rear outbuilding are clearly severable from each other, I will exercise my powers afforded by Section 79(1)(b) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) to issue a split decision.

As the outbuilding has already been constructed the time limit and plans conditions are not necessary.

A condition restricting the use to ensure that the outbuilding remains incidental to the host dwelling is reasonable and necessary for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed insofar as it relates to the outbuilding and dismissed insofar as it relates to the front garden wall/fence and electric gate.