Appeal 6008075

The appeal is dismissed.

For clarity and certainty, I have used the description of development given on the Council’s Decision Notice in the banner heading above.

I saw at my site visit some parts of the proposal have already been implemented, however for the avoidance of doubt I have determined the appeal on the basis of the submitted plans.

The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the development on: • the character and appearance of the surrounding area; and • highway safety, particularly in regard to pedestrian visibility.

The appeal property is a two-storey dormer bungalow which is prominently positioned on the junction of two spurs of [address]. The frontages to properties on [address] generally consist of low-level brick walls, railing design gates with modest gate pillars at either pedestrian or vehicular access points into their private curtilages. The low-level boundary treatments, particularly to the same side of [address] as the appeal property, ensures that a general sense of openness is retained to the frontage of properties when viewed from the street.

The development at the appeal property consists of a shallow, buff brick, boundary wall with tall pillars positioned at regular intervals with gaps provided for both vehicular and pedestrian access into the property. Whilst the wall and pillars are already in situ, the proposed gates for the property have yet to be installed.

The Council’s ‘House Extensions’ Supplementary Planning Document (June 2021) sets out the importance of designing boundary treatments so as not to harm the residential street scene. This is particularly relevant to height, design and positioning. The SPD goes on to state that front gates and gateposts over 1.5m in height will, in most cases, appear intrusive and overly dominant in the street unless the character of the area includes many similar examples.

The scale and design of the brick wall and pillars at the appeal property are broadly reflective of the wider character found in the street scene, particularly when viewed against the boundary treatment of other properties on the same side of [address] as the appeal property. Although the pillars are marginally higher than the guidance set out in the Council’s SPD, this difference is not excessive as to have an adverse visual effect in this location.

Nevertheless, the proposed installation of solid gates of the type indicated in the design and access statement for both vehicular and pedestrian access would, by virtue of their proposed size, be a significant addition to the frontage of the appeal property. The frontage of properties to the same side of [address] as the appeal property include shallow brick walls, with any gates being of a railing design which ensures the sense of openness can be retained. In this instance, the installation of solid panel gates would result in the loss of openness and, given the prominent position of the appeal property in the street scene, would appear highly incongruous and harmful to the character of the wider area.

The appellant has drawn my attention to other examples of boundary treatment within the wider vicinity of the appeal site, including properties located further along [address] and on [address]. However, I noted that many of these have very different relationships with their surroundings and are located in areas which either have a greater sense of enclosure or are less prominent in the street scene. Moreover, as I have limited details of these schemes before me, I cannot be certain under what circumstances they were erected. Therefore, I have considered the scheme before me on its own planning merits.

As a result, the proposal would be contrary to Policy DC6 of the Warrington Local Plan which states that development should respect, sustain and make a positive contribution to the local character and distinctiveness within the surrounding area having regard to scale, height and massing.

To the front of the appeal property is a junction which includes a spur off from [address]. The road in this location is relatively straight and affords good views in both directions and includes a wide pedestrian footpath.

The SPD indicates that vehicular gates should, where possible, open inwards into the private residential curtilage. There is limited detail provided on whether the proposed vehicular gates open either inward or outwards onto the public highway. [name] to allow the appeal, this could be controlled by way of condition to ensure the gates would open inwards. I have therefore determined the appeal on this basis and consequently the proposal is reflective of the SPD in that regard.

The Council contends that the proposal would provide insufficient visibility for drivers or pedestrians. Whilst the Council have made reference to design standards requiring gates to be set back 5m into the site, no such standards have been put before me, neither has it been demonstrated that such expectations are a formal part of the development plan.

However, I am mindful that the wall is in a similar position to the previous wall. Moreover, I note that the development has involved the enlargement of the driveway which has improved visibility for vehicles either accessing or exiting the appeal property. The linear nature of [address] and the presence of a broad footpath in this location means that the vehicles exiting the appeal property would be able to do so with a clear visibility in both directions.

Nevertheless, the introduction of gates of a solid panel design, coupled with their proposed height, would act as a significant visual barrier to both drivers and pedestrian passers-by. From a driver’s perspective, any views of the public highway, including the pavement, would be restricted until such a point where the vehicle is projecting significantly into the public footpath. From a pedestrian’s perspective, any passers-by may not be aware of the presence of manoeuvring vehicles exiting the appeal property. Consequently, this lack of visibility would have the potential to bring pedestrians into conflict with vehicle movements and would therefore pose a risk to highway safety. Should the gates open outwards towards the public highway, these risks would be exacerbated further.

As a result, the proposal would be contrary to Policy ENV8 of the Warrington Local Plan which states that development should consider the effect and timing of traffic movements to, from and within the site, including the impacts on highway safety

I have considered the appeal on its merits based on the scheme before me and the issues regarding the handling of the application by the Council are not matters for me to consider here.

For the above reasons, and having regard to all other matters raised, I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.