Appeal 6004457

The appeal is dismissed.

I have taken the most accurate description of the site location as indicated on the application form. I have also used the Easting and Northing co-ordinates for clarity.

On visiting the site, I observed that a gate and fence which broadly correspond to the submitted plans had been constructed. However, further fencing has been erected on the site which is not included on the submitted plans. For the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the appeal on the basis that planning permission is sought only for the development set out on the plans before me.

The main issues are the effect of the development on: • the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area; and • social inclusivity.

The appeal site is a section of road forming a cul-de-sac at the end of [address]. The road progresses to a turning head with a footway on one-side which is a public right of way. The footway connects [address] to [address] where it meets another footpath. Tall garden walls belonging to properties on [address] provide a backdrop to the footway. However, the walls give way to an open grassed area situated around the turning head. On the other side of the cul-de-sac are lawned gardens and driveways unenclosed from the street and which sit in front of the properties constituting 17 to [address]. Outside the site boundary, [address] includes two footways, with hedging and trees on one side and driveways, low-level fencing and dwarf walls on the other. The properties on [address] are also characterised by front gardens, yet these largely feature ornamental planting. Therefore the approach to the site from this direction features large plants and hedges which frame the end of that street.

The development includes a sliding gate which crosses the road of [address] where it connects to staggered railings on the footway. At the opposite end of the cul-de-sac is a timber fence panel positioned in front of bollards and attached to another set of staggered railings.

The sliding gate corresponds to the height of the brick walls on either side. However, these walls provide enclosure to private garden areas and driveways, not roads. They also match the brick of the surrounding dwellings and are situated at the periphery of the street. As such, the layout and positioning of the gate is contrary to the prevailing pattern of boundary treatments nearby, which are either at the side of the street or run parallel with it. Instead, the gate crosses the street, imposing itself on the road and hindering the progression of views beyond. Its height, alongside its opaque composite panelling, contrast harshly with the open driveways and low-level boundary treatments either side. Consequently, the gate appears as a visually unsympathetic and prohibitive feature that does not reflect the style of other boundary treatments locally, causing harm to the appearance of the streetscene.

The fence is close-boarded, meaning it is opaque and inhibits views into the appeal site. Whilst this is less prominent due to its location at the edge of the turning head, the height and material composition of the fence does not reflect the verdant or low-level treatments encountered on [address] or [address]. The result is that the fence creates a harsh backdrop against the relatively open and soft-landscaped areas which surround it.

A fallback position is forwarded by the appellant comprising a 1 metre high gate and fence, which they contend would meet permitted development rights. Whilst harm would be incurred by such a gate crossing [address], the height of the gate and fence would be halved, therefore lessening their harm. As such, it would be preferable to the scheme before me, and so cannot weigh in its favour. Another fallback is proposed where a slightly set-back 2 metre high gate and fence could be installed under permitted development rights. However, it is doubtful that such a proposal would meet the limitations of permitted development rights given the complexities of what constitutes a highway for its purposes. In the absence of a certificate of lawfulness, I am not convinced this amounts to a realistic fallback position.

Consequently, I find that the development has a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area. Conflict therefore arises with Policies C1 and H10 of the Tameside Unitary Development Plan (2004) which seek to ensure that adequate emphasis is placed on design considerations so that they complement or enhance the character or appearance of the surrounding area.

Paragraph 96 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that planning decisions should aim to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places which, amongst other things, promote social interaction, including opportunities for meetings between people who might not otherwise come into contact with each other, for example, through street layouts that allow for easy pedestrian and cycle connections within and between neighbourhoods.

The development is intended to create a gated community, giving it and the associated residential properties an intentionally exclusive feel. The gate and fence read as physical barriers, visually separating the dwellings on the appeal site from the rest of [address] and [address]. Whilst the gate and fence do not impede access to the public right of way for pedestrians, cyclists or horse riders, their height and width prevent visibility into the site for these users. This discourages movement into the site which, in turn, diminishes the opportunity for social interaction. Consequently, the development fails to be inclusive and harms the capacity of the street layout to promote interaction between people in the community.

The development may create a sense of community for those who reside within the appeal site, provide security for motor vehicles and enable children to play safely in the street. Nevertheless, these benefits do not overcome the harm identified above in relation to discouraging access and social interaction in the local area.

In light of the above, the development is detrimental to social inclusivity. Consequently, the development is in conflict with [name]-P1 and JP-C5 of the Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan Document (2024). These policies seek to enable development that provides opportunities for social contact and support by ensuring that streets are welcoming for all.

The development does not affect the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers and is intended to match the modern materials found on the dwellings nearby. In-curtilage parking spaces also remain unaffected, and the Local Highway Authority have confirmed that the development would not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety. However, the absence of harm in these respects do not amount to benefits of the scheme.

The appellant explains that the proposals increase security and safety and specifically mention motor theft. Be that as it may, I have little evidence that incidents of motor theft are particularly acute, or that there are enhanced safety concerns. In any event, it is not shown that the proposals would be the sole way to address them and less harmful measures are likely to exist. Hence, these benefits attract little weight.

Given the content of the Council’s Officer Report and Decision Notice, I do not consider that the absence of a subsequent appeal statement implies that the Council accepts the appellant’s position. Furthermore, I note the matters raised in respect of interactions between residents of the appeal site and users of the public right of way. However, such matters have not been determinative of the appeal, which has focussed on the merits of the case.

The proposed development conflicts with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations which indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. The appeal is therefore dismissed.