Appeal 6001912

The appeal is dismissed and planning permission is refused.

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 site address on the application form refers to [address]. Therefore, the address in the banner heading above is taken from the appeal documents as these correctly identify the site.

The development has already been implemented. Planning permission is therefore sought retrospectively, and I have made my recommendation on that basis.

The appeal is against the non-determination of the application. However, the Council has provided draft reasons for refusal, and the appellant has had the opportunity to comment on these. I have defined the main issues on that basis.

The main issues are the effect of the development on: i) the character and appearance of the area; and ii) highway safety.

The appeal site comprises a detached dwelling situated in a modern housing estate. I observed on my site visit that the estate has a high-quality appearance, due in part to the consistent use of soft landscaping and boundary treatment materials, as is evident from the public realm. This includes at the corner plots such as the appeal site, which is located at the corner of [address] and [address], near to the entrance to Anker Valley Primary School.

The corner plots in the area are predominantly open plan without any significant enclosing boundary treatments. They typically benefit from a generous amount of soft landscaping in the form of hedges, grass and trees, as is evident at the corner plot on the other side of [address] to the appeal site. Overall, the openness of the corner plots together with the landscaping soften the appearance of the dwellings in the estate, thus contributing positively to the character and appearance of the area.

Due to its prominent siting to the front and side of the dwelling together with its overall appearance, the timber fence is a conspicuous feature in the street scene. In contrast to the section of thin and open metal railings at the site, the picket style fence panels appear thick with only a narrow space in between the panels. Therefore, the fence forms a more solid enclosure compared to the thin metal railings. Moreover, the appearance of the timber material and its light colour contrasts with the generally consistent material palette of boundary treatments found elsewhere in the estate. Consequently, the development is an incongruous feature which has eroded the open character of the corner plot and has failed to maintain the character and quality of the estate.

In drawing these conclusions, I appreciate that the development is of a minor scale. Even so, small scale and unsympathetic developments such as this can undermine the overall quality and character of the area, especially given the attractive appearance of the estate. Indeed, the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) advises that the creation of high quality, beautiful and sustainable places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve. In that regard, the limited nature of the development does not justify its unsympathetic design.

Although the appellant states that timber picket style fences are common in the estate and has provided some photographs to that extent, I only saw one such example near to the site on my visit. Moreover, the example I saw appeared incongruous in the street scene, thus demonstrating the harm of the development. Furthermore, the addresses of the examples referred to were not provided and I was unable to visit them. In any case, I do not have the full details of these and so I cannot be certain that the circumstances are the same as the appeal proposal. For these reasons, and based on the evidence before me, I am not persuaded that timber picket style fences are sufficiently common in the estate to the extent that they justify the appeal scheme.

Consequently, the development is harmful to the character and appearance of the area. It conflicts with Policy EN5 of the Tamworth Borough Council Local Plan 2006-2031 (2016) (LP), which amongst other matters, requires that boundary treatments are appropriate to their context and that developments are sympathetic to the valued characteristics of an area. The development also conflicts with the guidance contained in the Framework, which advises that all developments should add to the overall quality of the area.

The main access to the appeal site is from [address], close to the entrance to the primary school nearby. Accordingly, there is very likely to be a high footfall of parents and very young children using the footpaths surrounding the site. Furthermore, since it is a primary school, the children using the footpath are likely to be smaller in height than the timber fence which has been installed on the boundary and could be in pushchairs.

Due to the height of the timber fence, its proximity to the driveway edge, together with its lack of sufficient permeability, it restricts visibility for drivers emerging from the driveway of the property. Similarly, from the perspective of pedestrians using the footpath adjacent to the access, including young children, the fencing restricts sight of vehicles emerging from the driveway over the footpath and onto the highway. Consequently, the boundary fencing has created an unacceptable risk to users of the footpath. While the appellant considers that the height of the fencing is modest, the harm to pedestrian safety could be significant and long lasting.

The appellant refers to previous planting at the site being more restrictive in terms of visibility than the timber fence. However, there is insufficient detailed information before me to indicate how tall the planting was and whether or not this had a similar effect in terms of visibility at the site’s access. Neither would it have the same degree of permanence as the installed fencing. In any case, my recommendation is based on the planning merits of the development before me. Furthermore, the absence of evidence of personal injury accidents do not alter my findings on this

Consequently, the development is harmful to highway safety. It conflicts with Policy SU2 of the LP, which amongst other matters, requires that developments provide adequate highway safety. The development also conflicts with the guidance in the Framework, which advises that developments should create places that are safe which minimise the scope for conflict between pedestrians and vehicles.

I understand that the development was installed to prevent litter being deposited on the property. However, there is little evidence before me of the ways in which the fence is specifically required to prevent such issues, as opposed to an alternative proposal that is not harmful in terms of character and appearance and highway safety.

Whether or not the Council has pursued enforcement action on other boundary treatments in the estate is not determinative on this appeal which is based on its own individual planning merits.

Finally, the appellant’s concerns regarding the behaviour of the Council, including the advice given and the consistency of its approach to boundary treatments in the area, are not reasons to allow the appeal.

The proposed development is contrary to the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations which would outweigh this conflict. Therefore, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed and that planning permission should be refused.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed and planning permission is refused.