Appeal 6006143

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for erection of a new fence to rear and side at [site address] , Rothwell, Leeds [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 26/00272/FU, and the plans submitted with it.

In the banner heading and formal decision above, I have set out a truncated form of the description of development in the application form, omitting that which is unnecessary to accurately describe the development.

I saw on my site visit that the boundary fence has already been installed. The appeal is therefore considered retrospectively.

The main issues are the effects of the development on (i) the character and appearance of the area; and (ii) highway safety.

The appeal site comprises a detached dwelling and its associated curtilage. It sits on a prominent corner plot at a bend in [address] that is elevated above the road and directly overlooked by several dwellings opposite. The surrounding area is characterised by detached and semi-detached dwellings and bungalows set back from the footpath behind private driveways and front gardens. Front garden areas are typically enclosed by small walls, fences and/or soft landscaping. There are however several notable examples of more heavily enclosed corner plots.

The appeal fence does not project forward of the principal elevation of the host dwelling, thereby retaining the open front garden space. It therefore also does not infringe upon the existing building line and ensures a considerable degree of openness is maintained in views looking south along [address] towards the appeal site.

The fence has however enclosed the side garden area and extends appreciably above the existing retaining wall. Nevertheless, it sits lower than the mature evergreen hedgerow along the rear boundary, which provides considerable screening in longer distance views looking east along [address].

Though the fence now sits close to the footpath, greater levels of enclosure and taller boundary treatments, including timber fencing, is not uncommon at corner plots in the immediate vicinity, particularly where a side boundary abuts the public footpath. Accordingly, I do not find the enclosure of the side garden area or provision of a tall fence in this location to be unduly obtrusive or out of keeping with the character and appearance of the area.

While the fence may currently appear untreated, the appellant has indicated their intention to introduce a darker finish and additional planting along the boundary. The Council has suggested a condition requiring it to be stained an unspecified recessive colour and that this be retained and maintained. However, treating or painting a fence is a necessary part of its maintenance and ensures its longevity, and it is therefore in the appellant’s own interest to do so.

Moreover, the colour and shade of fences in the surrounding area varies, including several examples that are a lighter natural wood colour, or which appear to have weathered naturally. Whether the fence is stained, painted or naturally weathers, its appearance will ultimately soften over time. Such a condition would therefore be insufficiently precise and, given my findings above, I do not consider it to be necessary or reasonable in this case.

The development does not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. It is therefore in accordance with Policy P10 of the [name] (as amended by the [name] 2019) [name] 11 September 2019 (the [name]) or Policies GP5 and N25 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006) (UDP). These policies, among other provisions seek to ensure that new development is high quality and appropriate to its context, boundaries are designed in a positive manner, and that proposals have regard to the guidance prepared for the area.

I have also not identified conflict with Policy HDG1 of the [name] (2012) or Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which seek to achieve well-designed places and ensure additions and alterations respect the character and appearance of the locality, paying particular attention to boundary treatments, among other considerations.

The rear garden of the appeal site abuts a driveway to the west at 2 Rosedale. As indicated above, a taller hedgerow runs along the rear boundary of the appeal site, and alongside this neighbouring driveway up to the footpath. The hedge is dense and evergreen and currently blocks eastward views for vehicles exiting the drive.

The hedge sits between the appeal fence and the driveway. The presence of the fence therefore has no material impact on views from the driveway. Accordingly, visibility for vehicles exiting the driveway would not improve were the appeal dismissed and the fence subsequently removed. The development therefore does not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

The Council has suggested conditions to reduce the height of the fence to enable adequate visibility from the driveway, however this would not be achieved by the suggested conditions and so they are neither necessary nor reasonable.

The development is therefore acceptable with regard to its effect on highway safety. It accords with Policies T2 and P10 of the [name] and Policy GP5 of the UDP. These policies, among other provisions, require development proposals to maximise highway safety, and seek to ensure that new development provides a safe and secure environment and access.

The development adheres to the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations which outweigh this finding. Accordingly, for the reasons given, the appeal succeeds.