Appeal 6005040

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposed sliding gate, green metal mesh fencing and other fence panels were in place at the time of my site visit, though it appeared that the mesh fencing may be slightly taller than proposed - up to about 2m height on the frontage. Where there is any discrepancy, this decision relates to the proposal as detailed on the submitted plans and application form rather than to the development as carried out.

The main issues are the effects of the proposal on: i) The character and appearance of this part of [site address] ; and ii) The safety of public highway users.

The A428 [site address] is a primary route between Coventry and Rugby, lined here by rows of mainly detached houses. Some of the frontages are open, but most have a variety of front enclosures including walls, fences, railings, hedges and shrubs.

No [site address] is the first house on the north side of the street, on the approach from Coventry. It is a large detached house, set back from the street with a parking area and tall evergreen hedging to the front. The green mesh fencing has been added to the front of a low timber post and rail fence, on the street boundary. The tall sliding gate that closes off the double width access is set back from the fence line and faced with timber effect composite cladding. The side panels enclosing the gaps to the frontage fencing are clad in the same material.

Even within the context of the varied enclosures nearby, the composite cladding of the gate and side panels stands out as being incongruous and unsympathetic in appearance due to its relatively bright colour and artificial character. Its visual impact is exacerbated by its prominent position on the entrance to [site address] , by its substantial width and by its opaque character, blocking views through.

The green mesh fencing is/would be of substantial height. It is more industrial and less domestic in style than other nearby enclosures. The evergreen hedging helps it to blend in at present, but that cannot be relied on in the long term. The hedge plants are overgrown and now resemble truncated trees more than hedging. At some point in the future they will likely need to be removed. Without thick evergreen hedging the mesh fence would also stand out as being an unsympathetic and uncharacteristic feature in the street scene.

I conclude that the proposal unduly harms the character and appearance of this part of [site address] . It therefore conflicts with policy SDC1 of the Rugby Borough Council Local Plan 2011-2031 (LP), which aims to secure high quality design that responds to and improves local character.

[site address] is a busy A road, with one lane of traffic in each direction, footways, and a 30mph speed limit as it passes through [site address] . The Council’s concern, based on advice from the County Highway Authority, is that the gate is not set far enough back from the public highway to allow vehicles to safely pull off the road before stopping to open the gate.

The 2 councils (the planning and highway authorities) seem a bit confused and inconsistent regarding the required set back for the gates. Three different measurements are referenced – from edge of carriageway, edge of footway and edge of public highway – and the required set back is alternatively quoted as being 5m and 5.5m. The highway authority‘s [name] (WDG) advises that gates should be set at least 5.5 metres back from the back of the public highway footway. The WDG was adopted following public consultations, but does not appear to have any formal status in the planning system. I therefore treat it as good advice rather than planning policy.

The gate at No [site address] is set back about 5.7m from the edge of carriageway and about 3.9m from the back of the footway. This means that almost all cars could easily pull off the carriageway, perpendicular to the street, even when the gate is shut. In doing so, they would partially block the footway, but should not have to block it completely. In most cases, therefore, pedestrians should not have to step into the street to pass a stopped vehicle.

There are a number of factors here which help to minimise danger to highway users. Firstly, the 30 mph speed limit means traffic speeds are relatively low and driver visibility is good along this straight section of road. Secondly, the footway on the opposite side of the road is likely to be more heavily used since it gives access towards the nearby commercial/shopping area of Coventry whereas the footway in front of No [site address] terminates not far to the west. Thirdly, there are no parking restrictions here so that visitors’ vehicles and delivery vans can park within the public highway. Finally, the gate is controlled electrically so that in many cases it could be opened without a car needing to wait in the drive for any significant length of time.

Taking all these factors into account, I conclude that the proposal should not prejudice the safety of public highway users. It accords in this respect with LP policy D1 and the National Planning Policy Framework, which aim to ensure safe access is provided to sites.

The appellant states that the fence and gate are needed for security reasons, in light of vehicle theft and an attempted break in. I recognise this to be a legitimate requirement here, but am not convinced that the current proposal is the only way to address this situation.

I have considered whether a condition could be used to satisfactorily remedy the harm to local character and appearance. The appellant states that she would be willing to compromise by removing the green mesh and reducing the height of the gate to 1m. I cannot, however, impose a condition that would so radically change the proposal.

The appellant’s appeal statement also refers to the possibility of the fence and gate being permitted development1 if the fence is no more than 1m high and the gate no more than 2m. The Council has no opportunity, however, to comment on this assertion within the procedure for this appeal. It is outside of the scope of this decision to assess what alternatives might or might not be permitted development.

[name] find in favour of the appellant on the second main issue, my concerns about the first main issue are sufficiently compelling for me to find that the proposal conflicts with the development plan, taken as a whole. I see no overriding factors which would indicate a decision in conflict with adopted policy. For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should not succeed.