Appeal 6003376

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for new double gate with pillars to front at [site address] , Leeds [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 25/05788/FU, subject to the following condition:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following drawings: location plan; block plan; proposed front elevation.

At the time of my visit the brick pillars had already been erected, although the gates themselves had not yet been installed. I have therefore treated the proposal as part retrospective.

The description of development on the application form contains superfluous detail and matters that do not amount to development, so I have adopted a more concise description in the interests of clarity.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

Whinfield forms part of the [address] Estate. While the Council emphasises the prevalence of open driveways or low, visually permeable gates in the vicinity, I observed a broader range of boundary treatments, including several gates over 1 metre in height and tall gate posts. This indicates a more varied front-boundary character than suggested by the Council’s assessment.

The pillars are modest in scale at around 1.5 metres high and constructed in brick that sits comfortably with the materials found in the street. The proposed gates would reach around 1.5 metres in height overall, with a solid lower section to about 1 metre and a slatted upper section. The design would therefore not present as overtly solid or impermeable. The slatted upper portion would preserve a degree of openness, reflecting the characteristics of a number of existing gates along Whinfield. The curved profile of the upper section would further soften the appearance. A similar arrangement at [address] that the proposal would not appear incongruous.

The Adel Neighbourhood Design Statement notes that high gates on street frontages can affect the area’s character. However, the gates in this case would not introduce an atypically tall or dominant feature, and would not erode the verdant or spacious qualities of the estate. The design would maintain an appropriate level of visual permeability while enhancing security for the occupants.

I therefore conclude that the development would not harm the character or appearance of the street scene or the wider estate. The scheme accords with Policy P10 of the Leeds City Council Core Strategy (amended 2019), and saved Policies N25 and GP5 of the Leeds City Council Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006), which require new development, including boundary treatments, to be well designed and appropriate to their context.

As works have commenced, it is not necessary to impose the standard time-limit condition. A condition requiring compliance with the approved plans is needed to provide certainty and to secure the development as assessed.

For the reasons given, the appeal should be allowed.