Appeal 6007647

The appeal is dismissed.

The boundary treatment as described in this appeal has already been installed, as confirmed within the Application Form and on my site visit. As such the scheme is retrospective, with the Council having made their decision on this basis, and to which I have also.

It is noted that in the Reason for [name].1 associated with the matter of Character and Appearance, that scheme is noted by the Council as being contrary to the Leeds Householder Design Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) “Policy HDG1.” An SPD is not a Development Plan Document; it is guidance, and as such the SPD does not contain planning policies but planning guidance. For the avoidance of doubt, I have treated the SPD as guidance within this determination and not a planning policy.

The main issues are the effect of the boundary installation upon: • The existing building and the character and appearance of the locality; and • [name].

[address] appears to have been constructed as part of a residential housing estate of the mid to late twentieth century. Typical of developments of this time, dwellings have a more functional and very planned appearance with dwellings having similar front and side setbacks with front gardens and gaps between Appeal Decision: 6007647 dwellings which allow views to the tops of trees in rear gardens. [address] contains two storey semi-detached dwellings with dominant characteristics such as large coaxial chimney stacks, brick and render, with large canted bay windows, with hipped and pitched and gabled roof forms. Boundary treatments consist predominantly of low brick walls with hedging behind with many of the dwellings having installed a vehicular access with an emphasis of gaps in and around dwellings where vegetation in the front garden is allowed to dominate. Whilst there have been some uncharacteristic alterations such as the paving over of front gardens, the dwellings still retain a functional and uncluttered character and appearance with the glimpses of vegetation and openness provided by gaps in and around dwellings providing some of the positive characteristics and distinctiveness of the locality.

The appeal site is located at the corner of [address] and [address], and is in a prominent location with its boundary on two street frontages. The appeal dwelling appears to have been constructed later than the estate and has characteristics more of the mid-late twentieth century, however, it still retains a functional appearance with simple pitched and gabled roof with tall chimney stacks and contributes to the positive qualities of local character and distinctiveness in the locality.

In undertaking alterations to existing dwellings and associated boundaries, the [name] (CS) Policy P10 is a design led policy that seeks that a number of principles are adhered to such as basing proposals on a thorough context analysis, providing good design principles appropriate to scale and function, responding to local character and townscape, good placemaking, enhancing legibility, character and local distinctiveness, amongst others. Saved Policy GP5 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (UDP) seeks that proposals meet detailed planning considerations. Additionally, UDP Saved Policy N25 is specific to boundary treatment and seeks that boundaries be designed in a positive manner and reflects the character of the area. These policies are also supported by the Leeds Householder Design Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD) which gives further design principles and guidance to the design policies.

Given the positive elements of the surrounding locality with the predominant characteristics being low brick boundary walls, vegetation and spaces in and around dwellings, the use of grey close boarded fencing at 2 metres tall has a very poor and defensive appearance which is alien to this particular residential environment. The fence which is situated on both boundaries gives an uncomfortable and stark appearance within the street scene which is very defensive in appearance along with the pedestrian and vehicular gates that are completely solid. [name] acknowledge comments from the [name] of Case (SoC) that there would still be a garden, the open aspect to the front garden and spaces in and around the dwelling have been removed as a result of the height of the wall when seen amongst the context of adjoining and surrounding properties within the street scene. The materials utilised are also quite poor and have little relationship to the inherent traditional character of the street scene and would be inappropriate within this context.

I acknowledge the Appellant’s examples of tall front boundary walls in the surrounding area, however some of these examples include tall hedging, some of which are behind low brick boundary walls. The installation of hedging is not Appeal Decision: 6007647 analogous to this appeal as hedging has a much softer appearance to a close boarded fence when experienced within the street. I also appreciate other examples such as No.[address] opposite that has infilled the brick piers with tall close boarded timber fencing. I am unclear whether this example has planning permission, as it too also is detrimental to the character and appearance of the area and is not a sufficient justification for further detrimental installations within the area.

Other examples refer to gates and side boundary treatment found within surrounding streets. Some have planning permission and some do not appear to have consent. It illustrates that in some cases the proportions and size of front gardens are different, meaning that a taller wall is more justifiable in these locations or decisions around gates found that in those specific circumstances when considering local distinctiveness, that the boundary treatments were justified. In this particular street scene and in this particular circumstance the character is of open front gardens with low boundary walls, and hence a fence of two metres tall would appear noticeably taller and disproportionate and therefore would have an incongruous appearance within this particular context. As such, I am not convinced that the examples from the surrounding area are analogous to the appeal site and I therefore give these examples little weight.

I also acknowledge comments that previously the fence installed along the boundaries of the appeal site was 1.5 metres tall, although no evidence of this has been submitted with the appeal documents. A fence of this height next to a public highway would have also required planning consent, evidence of this which has not been submitted with this appeal. As such I cannot give this existing condition any weight in my determination.

Consequently, and in conclusion of this matter, the combined height, design and materials of the fence are incongruous to the character and appearance of the street scene and would not reinforce the qualities of local character and distinctiveness and would be harmful to the character and appearance of the building and the greater locality. This would be contrary to CS Policy P10 and [name] GP5 and N25 as described previously.

I appreciate that the road conditions I experienced on my site visit was only a snapshot of the road at this particular time, however I have also considered the evidence submitted by both main parties, and in light of this, I am satisfied that what I saw represents typical conditions.

The vehicular access is via an existing dropped kerb onto [address] which is a single carriageway in each direction. [address] is a residential road that provides a pedestrian and vehicular route between the A639 [address] and [address] which then leads to the A639 and towards the motorway network and Leeds City Centre. Whilst carrying more vehicles and higher weight classes of vehicles than the surrounding residential streets and cul-de-sacs, [address] has a low speed limit of 30 miles per hour with the road appearing narrower due to road markings of a central median. The road at the appeal site is relatively straight with a single white line on the kerb in front of the appeal site to limit on street parking. The road contains street lighting and a pedestrian footpath adjacent to the road on either side. Appeal Decision: 6007647

The footpaths were reasonably well used, pedestrians use [address] which has bus stops taking passengers between Leeds and Wakefield City Centres, as well as being a route for school children to access the [address] Academy and surrounding services. Along each side of the [address] there is unrestricted parking, with evidence that parked vehicles along the road led to some vehicles waiting within the highway before passing the parked vehicles in order to allow oncoming vehicles to proceed safely.

Based on what I saw on my site visit I deduce that despite its deficiencies, [address] operates satisfactorily without any significant safety issues. [name] have not been presented with any accident data, the absence of formal accident data does not in itself mean that accidents have not occurred, near misses, or indeed that a carriageway is ‘safe.’

The vehicular gates open inwards; however, they would not appear to be electrically operated, with there being no area for a car to be placed whilst opening the gates without obstructing the footpath. I can appreciate the entrance is relatively wide, however the height combined with the solid nature of the boundary treatment does impede visibility splays to either side of the access which makes it difficult to see pedestrians and cyclists using the footpaths. I can appreciate that the Appellant exercises care and seeks to back into the driveway so they can exit in a forward direction, however planning assessments are made on the lifetime of the site, and that future occupiers may also back out onto the road which is a consideration.

I agree with the Appellant’s statement that there are a number of properties along [address] that have similar circumstances and similar lack of visibility when entering and exiting [address]. The access is also existing and already has poor visibility which is made worse by the installed fence. As such, the fence has not been designed in a way that seeks to address the inefficiencies and poor visibility that is extant. The proposal would therefore likely cause adverse detriment towards highway safety and be contrary with CS Policy T2 and UDP Saved Policy GP5 which seek to ensure that development takes into account the surrounding environment in relation to not causing harm towards highway safety and the free flow of traffic.

I acknowledge the submitted information of the Appellant’s which indicates the reasoning for the height of the fence and the need for security and the Appellant’s need to create a safe and secure environment for their family which I am prepared to consider as a material consideration to this scheme. [name] empathise with this situation there may be other ways to increase the level of security in accordance with secured by design principles that are sympathetic to the street scene and in accordance with the policies of the Development Plan. As such, these material considerations do not indicate that the decision should not otherwise be made in accordance with the policies of the Development Plan.

I also acknowledge comments that a tall hedge could be placed along the boundaries of the property that could be taller than the boundary treatment that was installed. Such installations are beyond the scope of planning and whilst the effect would be similar for highway safety, it would not have the same effect towards character and appearance as vegetation would be more in-keeping than close Appeal Decision: 6007647 timber boarded fencing. This circumstance does not however justify the appropriateness of the development.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal be dismissed.