Appeal 6003499

The appeal is dismissed.

I have made some very slight changes to the description of development within the banner heading to limit that wording to the description of development only.

At the time of my site visit the fence and gates were already in place at the property and broadly accorded with the plan that is before me.

The main issues are the effect of the gates and fence on the character and appearance of the area and on highway safety.

[address] is a residential cul-de-sac which is set back from the main road through Beeford. Front boundary treatment within the immediate area, where constructed, is broadly formed of low fencing or walls. Other front boundary treatment is formed via hedges which were generally at a low height at the time of my site visit although the neighbouring property to the appeal site had a tall hedge to the front.

I note that the evidence indicates that the frontage to the appeal site was previously formed of a tall hedge. There is a boarded timber fence opposite the appeal site which is of similar height to the fence and gates in place at the appeal site although this forms the side boundary of No. [address] (No.7) and not the front boundary.

The appeal property is set back from the main street, well within the cul-de-sac. However, the gates and fencing form tall, solid and enclosing features within [address] by reason of their height and solidity which creates a sense of enclosure within this section of the street and which is at odds with other parts of [address].

East Riding Council has a clear and up to date Design Code1 (DC) which states that boundary treatments for residential properties fronting public realm must not exceed 1.2m in height, citing concerns amongst other things around enclosure and natural surveillance.

It advises that where there are existing boundary features within an established street which exceed 1.2 metres, a justification for a higher boundary may be acceptable. However, the fence and gates have enclosed the whole of the public facing frontage in a manner which does not allow for any element of overlooking or natural surveillance. The taller fence across the street does not therefore provide justification given that the frontage of that property caters for overlooking and natural surveillance to and from that dwelling.

The fence and gates therefore have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area. The scheme conflicts with Policy ENV1 of the East Riding Local Plan Update (2025) (LP) which amongst other things states that development will be supported where it achieves a high quality of design, which contributes to a sense of place and beauty, including by having regard to the specific characteristics of the site’s wider context and the character of the surrounding area and including by having an appropriate scale and height. There would also be conflict with the DC.

Whilst the plans indicate that the gates open inwards, the height and solidity of the gates and fencing mean that anyone driving out from behind the fence and gates would have very limited visibility of anyone who may be using the footway on [address].

I accept that use of the footpath is likely to be limited given there are two properties at the head of the cul-de-sac and given that road conditions are likely to be quiet such that pedestrians may choose to use the carriageway instead.

Nonetheless, the height of the fence is such that it could lead to conflict between drivers exiting the gates and pedestrians using the footpath such that there is a material detriment to highway safety as a result of the proposal. This is again a point made out clearly within the DC, which states that high boundary features next to accesses can reduce visibility for those leaving the plot. The taller fence to the side of No.[address] to the driveway entrance.

The fence and gates therefore have a detrimental impact on highway safety. The scheme subsequently further conflicts with Policy ENV1 of the LP which amongst other things states that development will be supported where it achieves a high quality of design including by minimising highway safety risks. There would again be conflict with the DC. I have not found direct conflict with Policy EC4 of the LP and the effect of the proposal on access and egress if all parking spaces in the front garden were occupied are not clear from the evidence before me. 1 [name] – April 2025 – [name] of Yorkshire Council p111.

The fence and gates conflict with the development plan and there are no considerations which indicate that a decision should be made otherwise than in accordance with it. The appeal should therefore be dismissed.