Appeal 6003261

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 scheme, which seeks retrospective planning permission. I am satisfied that the plans accurately depict the works on site. The main issue in regard to which is its effect on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal property is a two‐storey semi‐detached dwelling located within a small cul‐de‐sac, positioned alongside a more modern residential development. The prevailing boundary treatment in the immediate street scene consists mainly low, open railings or low retaining brick walls with railings above. These enclose modest front gardens which are generally laid to lawn and accompanied by short driveways. This consistent arrangement provides a sense of openness and uniformity that contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal fence, by virtue of its considerable height, solid timber construction and unrelieved, visually impermeable design, forms a prominent, conflicting and overly assertive feature within the street. It introduces a harsh, defensive enclosure that unacceptably contrasts with the softer, more open frontage treatment elsewhere. This results in a loss of visual continuity and erodes the open and cohesive character that defines the cul‐de‐sac.

Consequently, the development conflicts with Policy P10 of the [name] Local Plan 2019, Policies GP5 and N25 of Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review) 2006, and guidance contained in the Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 2012 which, amongst other things, seek to ensure that development is designed in a positive manner appropriate to its context.

The Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) contained in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, sets out the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation, and to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who don’t. Disability is a relevant protected characteristic to which the PSED applies. I understand that a member of the household may have additional needs that could amount to a disability. The enclosure of the front garden is intended to provide increased security in a way that responds to those needs.

Article 3 of the [name] on the Rights of the Child and Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 provides that in all actions concerning children, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration. Article 8 affords the right to respect for private and family life. Dismissal of the appeal would interfere with the appellant’s rights under both Articles. However, these are qualified rights, and any interference must be lawful, necessary, and proportionate in pursuit of a legitimate aim.

[name] have given significant weight to the appellant’s personal circumstances, it has not been sufficiently demonstrated that the proposal is the only viable means of addressing those circumstances within the context of the site or otherwise. As such, the harm I have found would not be suitably outweighed. In this case therefore, the interference with the duties under the relevant Acts is proportionate, and the upholding of the refusal of planning permission would therefore be justified.

The appellant’s intention to maintain the fence and remove it upon leaving the property does not mitigate the harm identified. A condition requiring its future removal would not meet the national tests for planning conditions, as it would be neither enforceable nor precise, relying on personal circumstances and an unspecified future event that the Council could not reasonably monitor or compel. It would therefore not provide a suitable means of mitigating the development’s harmful effects.

For the reasons given above, the scheme conflicts with the development plan and material considerations do not indicate a decision other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend that 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.