Appeal 6006340

The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to the fence.

The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to the porch, canopy and driveway and permission is granted for a porch, canopy and driveway at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2025/0552, subject to the following conditions:-

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans insofar as they relate to the porch, canopy and driveway only: Block plan scale 1:500; A2.1, A3.1, A3.2, A4.1, A4.2, V1.1.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling.

The decision notice refers to the development as ‘Single storey porch and canopy to front elevation, fencing to front boundary’ and as this describes the proposal more succinctly, I have used the relevant parts of that description in the formal decision above but have also included the driveway referred to in the application.

The main issues in this case are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the area; • highway safety in regards to visibility when entering/egressing from [address].

The appeal site comprises a traditional, two storey semi-detached house of a modest appearance with a pitched roof, a ground floor bay window and a small flat canopy above the front door. It is located within a residential area of similar properties that were built set back behind front gardens and without driveways. Most of the dwellings have not been substantially altered on their front elevations but many now have driveways at the front of their plot. Many of the original privet hedges have been replaced with low fences, railings or walls that provide a sense of openness in the street scene and this contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site occupies a corner position at the junction of [address] with [address]. A small front porch extension has been partially built across the front door and its lean-to pitched roof continues as a canopy across the bay window. The Council has raised no objection to those elements of the proposal and although I saw no other similar examples at my visit, they are small in size and scale and would appear as a subordinate addition that would not be unduly prominent in the street scene.

The existing driveway is of a double width to the front of the dwelling and accessed by a dropped kerb. The Council has raised no objection to the proposed tarmac driveway and as I saw several other similar examples in the area, that would also be acceptable.

However, its objections concern the proposed fence, which has already been installed. It is positioned to the side of the driveway and sits on top of an existing brick wall along most of the frontage, following the perimeter of the site around the corner onto [address] where its adjoins a separate single driveway that leads to a semi-detached garage and also forms part of the appeal site. On the corner, there is a gap in the wall with gateposts either side, together with a dropped kerb, and at this point I noted at my visit that there appears to be a gate. Along the two side boundaries, the fence is installed to ground level. At around 1.8m in height and extending in length along the frontage for some 17m or so according to the plans, the fence appears unduly dominating and has a severely enclosing impact on the openness of the corner and the street scene.

I conclude then that this would significantly harm the openness of the area and its character and appearance, contrary to the development plan policies ST1 and HG7 in the Ashfield Local Plan Review (2002) (LP) which seek to ensure that proposals do not adversely affect the character and visual amenity of the area. The other parts of the proposal would accord with those policies.

[address], a no through road, provides the main access into this residential area from [address], the B6023. [address] is a loop road in three sections that leads off [address]. The appeal site lies around the corner from an entrance on [address] to a primary and nursery school. There is an advisory speed limit of 20mph in the area during mornings and afternoons around school starting and finishing times. Other than immediately around the entrance and two of the junctions in the area (not those closest to the appeal site), there are no parking restrictions in either [address] or [address].

Not all of the dwellings in the street have driveways. It is likely then that at certain times during the day, there is a high level of on-street parking in close proximity to the appeal site from the vehicles of both residents and parents/carers dropping off or picking up children from school. The appellant’s photos indicate that this is the case.

Historic images on Google street view show that the existing boundary wall and the previously installed low, open metal fence that was positioned on top of the wall afforded clear views across the corner that would have allowed intervisibility between drivers, pedestrians and other road users. At my visit I saw that visibility around the junction of [address] and [address], when emerging from or entering both driveways of the appeal site is now severely restricted by the fence. It is clear from what I have seen that a visibility splay of 2.4m by 25m in the direction towards [address] cannot be achieved. This exacerbates to an unacceptable degree any difficulties already caused by on-street parking and the alignment of the road.

The appellant has indicated that he is willing to reduce the height of the fence at the corner, introduce stepped or open panels, or accept a condition securing a visibility triangle if deemed necessary. However, I must determine the appeal on the basis of the plans before me and am not persuaded that such a condition would sufficiently mitigate the harm that would be caused.

I conclude then that given the proximity to a school entrance and the high level of on-street parking during school starting and finishing times, the proposed fence would present a significant danger to the highway safety of drivers, pedestrians and other road users. It is therefore contrary to development plan policies ST1 and HG7 in the LP which seek to ensure that proposals do not adversely affect highway safety.

The Council has not objected in terms of the effect of the proposed porch and canopy on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. Although it would be sited close to the bay window of the adjoining semi-detached property, given the size and scale of the extension, any impact would be minimal and would not cause significant harm to the living conditions of those occupiers. I am satisfied therefore that the proposed porch and canopy would be acceptable.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposed porch, canopy and driveway would accord with the development plan and there are no material considerations that would outweigh that. Those parts of the proposal are clearly severable from the fence and I shall therefore issue a split decision. The appeal should be allowed insofar as it relates to those elements.

In addition to the standard commencement condition, a condition is necessary requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans (except for the fence), to provide certainty. A condition for matching external materials is also necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the site and the area.

The proposed fence is contrary to the development plan and there are no material considerations that would outweigh that. The appeal should therefore be dismissed insofar as it relates to the fence.