Appeal 6003666

The appeal is dismissed.

The description in the banner heading above is taken from the Council’s decision notice, which succinctly describes the proposal. During my site visit I saw that the fencing was partly in situ but not completed and the gates were not installed. I am subsequently considering the appeal in part retrospectively.

The main issues are the effects of the proposed development on the street scene in [address] and on highway and pedestrian safety.

The appeal property is located on the corner of [address] and [address]. [address] is a short cul-de-sac characterised by properties set back from the footway. The boundaries of properties to the footway in the cul-de-sac comprises a mixture of predominantly low boundary treatments and planting. This results in an active engaging street scene between buildings and the public realm and a pleasant environment with open views to the properties.

The proposed fence and gates would abut the footway, and as a result of its height, length and solid massing it would be a dominant feature in the street scene. This would be exacerbated by the side return fences, which would enclose a large section of the grounds. Taken together, the proposals would appear as a strikingly stark feature creating a hard edge adjacent to the footway.

The type of fence and materials is not unusual in a residential area. Nonetheless, the combination of its considerable length and height are such that it would still appear as an unduly dominant solid feature that would be at odds with the open qualities along the footway from the varied and lower boundaries.

I therefore conclude on this main issue that the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the street scene in [address]. As such, I find conflict with the requirements of Policy ENV1 of the of the East Riding Local Plan Strategy [name] (ERLP) and paragraphs 131 and 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). These say, amongst other things, that development will be supported where it achieves a high quality of design, which optimises the potential of the site and contributes to a sense of place and beauty. This will be accomplished by, amongst other things, having regard to the specific characteristics of the site’s wider context and the character of the surrounding area.

When exiting the driveway of the appeal premises and the driveway of the adjacent property on [address], the presence of the tall fence abutting the footway would restrict visibility for drivers. Drivers would have limited views of pedestrians using the footway or of other vehicles driving into [address] from [address].

I recognise that the chance of a scenario leading to a collision with vehicles or pedestrians as vehicles emerge from either driveway may not necessarily be high due to the modest number of properties within the cul-de-sac. However, the potential consequences from such collisions would be significant and unacceptable.

I therefore conclude on this main issue that the proposed development would have an unacceptable effect on highway and pedestrian safety. As such, I find conflict with the requirements of Policies ENV1 and EC4 of the ERLP and paragraphs 115, 116, and 117 of the Framework, when taken together and in so far as they relate to this main issue. These say, amongst other things, that development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network, following mitigation, would be severe, taking into account all reasonable future scenarios.

My attention has been drawn to tall fences in the area that are adjacent to or near footways. However, those nearest along [address] were set back from the footway behind an area of grass, which reduced their dominance from the footway whilst also ensuring visibility of pedestrians or vehicles along the footway and road were not unduly impeded. Moreover, I have no firm details regarding the circumstances resulting in these fences, or others in the village, being erected and none were located within [address]. As such, their presence does not justify the harm in this instance from the proposed development before me.

The appellant explains that the fence and gate is required due to a family member’s health condition to allow direct access between the car and the house in an enclosed, safe and a sensory regulated environment. In exercising my function on behalf of a public authority, I am aware of my duties under the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) contained in the Equality Act 2010, which sets out the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and to advance equality of opportunity. The Act recognises that disability constitutes a relevant protected characteristic for the purposes of PSED.

[name] sympathise with the personal circumstances of the appellant, no substantive evidence has been provided to suggest that other ways to achieve the appellant’s aims or minimise the extent of built form have been investigated and discounted that might improve visibility and reduce the impact on the street scene. In this regard, I can not be certain on the evidence before me that the appeal scheme is the only means of achieving the appellant’s objectives. As such, whilst I recognise the benefits of the scheme, given the nature and totality of the harm from the two main issues I am not persuaded that, they outweigh the harm and policy conflicts I have identified.

For the reasons given above, the proposals would conflict with the development plan and there are no material considerations that outweigh this conflict. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.