Appeal 6005933

The appeal is dismissed.

As indicated by the planning application form, the development has already been undertaken and therefore was in situ at the time of my site visit. This weighs neither for nor against the proposal, which I have determined on the basis of the submitted plans.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the street scene.

The appeal property is a semi-detached two-storey house on the northern side of [site address] . The character of the area is solely residential and formed mainly of pairs of semi-detached properties along uniform building lines. Front boundary treatments vary but low brick walls form the prevalent character.

The proposed boundary treatment consists of 1.7m high solid vehicular and pedestrian gates across the driveway to the west of the frontage, supported by brick pillars of similar height and a marginally lower brick wall with fencing atop to the equivalent height of the pillars.

The appellant asserts the materials and finish are appropriate within their residential context. However, by reason of their tall height, dark colour and solid appearance, the vehicular and pedestrian gates appear as stark and dominant features, brutally interrupting the defining character of the low brick walls and iron railing gates along the street scene. Even when open, as they were at the time of my visit, their prominence over the low wall of the neighbouring property renders the gates incongruous in the street scene.

Beyond the gates, the remainder of the frontage is enclosed by a low wall with a tall hedge behind. In contrast to the prevailing character, the frontage of the appeal property is now entirely enclosed by tall boundary treatments, reducing the contribution that the frontage of the property makes to the pleasant, generally open character of the street.

The appellant makes reference to other examples of front boundary treatment elsewhere on the street considered to be consistent in appearance with those proposed. No addresses were provided, but I witnessed similar gates at Nos 49 and 53. However, the council confirms that these are unauthorised and the subject of on-going enforcement action. They do not therefore weigh in favour of the proposal.

Having regard to the above, I find that the development forms a stark, dominant and incongruous feature, which detracts from, and causes unacceptable harm to, the character and appearance of the street scene. Accordingly, the proposal conflicts with Policy CS28 of the Rotherham Local Plan (LP) [name] 2013- 2028 (2014) and Policy SP55 of the [name] and [name] (2018) which require development to be responsive to its context and create high quality public realm, including with appropriate boundary treatment, to create visually attractive high quality development.

Since the gates have been in place, the appellant suggests they have not received complaint from any neighbour, and no objection was raised by the council in respect of highway or pedestrian safety. These are neutral factors which neither negate nor outweigh the conflict with the development plan.

The appellant asserts the boundary treatment offers increased security from unintentional access by members of the public and prevents overlooking and is therefore beneficial to the appeal property’s occupants who include children and an individual with health issues and a desire for privacy due to religious beliefs.

Article 8(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 provides that everyone has the right to respect for their private and family life, their home and their correspondence, and Article 3(1) of the [name] on the Rights of the Child provides that in all actions concerning children, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration. In addition, disability, age and religious beliefs are relevant protected characteristics to which the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) set out in s149 of the Equality Act 2010 applies. These rights and the PSED duties are therefore engaged in my decision. However, they are qualified rights, and interference may be justified where in the public interest.

I have had regard to the policies of the LP which aim to provide high quality development in the public interest. Since planning law requires applications for planning permission to be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise, I attach significant weight to the proposal’s conflict with the development plan policies.

Private amenity space is available elsewhere within the property’s curtilage. Furthermore, it has not been demonstrated that there is no alternative mechanism by which to enhance security without conflict with the development plan. Therefore, dismissing the appeal would have limited interference with the occupants’ right to a private family life and home, the best interests of a child, and PSED duties. Therefore, I afford only moderate weight to the appellant’s desire for increased security and privacy.

Consequently, the harm caused by the appeal proposal outweighs its benefits in terms of eliminating discrimination against persons with the protected characteristics of disability, age and religious belief, advancing equality of opportunity for those persons, and fostering good relations between them and others.

I have found that the proposed development conflicts with the development plan as a whole. Material considerations do not point to a decision contrary to it. Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed.