Wood gates to rear of property to replace section of boundary brick wall

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 October 2016 by J F Powis BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 30 November 2016 Appeal Ref: APP/U1240/D/16/3156986 1 Hornbeam Way, Colehill, Dorset BH21 2QE  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mrs Angela Porter against the decision of East Dorset District Council.  The application Ref 3/16/0329/HOU, dated 19 March 2016, was refused by notice dated 21 July 2016.  The development proposed is wood gates to rear of property to replace section of boundary brick wall. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for wood gates to rear of property to replace section of boundary brick wall at 1 Hornbeam Way, Colehill, Dorset BH21 2QE in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 3/16/0329/HOU, dated 19 March 2016, and the plans submitted with it. Preliminary Matters 2. For reasons of clarity, the description of development set out above is taken from the Council’s decision notice and the appeal form. 3. The application was made retrospectively and I note from the application form that the development was completed in January 2016. At the time of my visit, the proposed gates were installed on the appeal site and a caravan was being stored behind them. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the site and surroundings. Reasons 5. 1 Hornbeam Way is a detached house occupying a corner plot, with Wesley Road running along its western boundary. The area is characterised by well- spaced detached and semi-detached residential properties, with mature trees and wide grass verges contributing to a feeling of spaciousness in the street scene. An existing red and dark grey brick wall of substantial height marks the western boundary of the appeal site with Wesley Road, which slopes downhill from north to south. The appeal development comprises two wooden gates Appeal Decision APP/U1240/D/16/3156986 2 which replace part of the brick boundary wall at the north western end of the site to allow storage of the appellant’s caravan. 6. A number of representations have been submitted by local people concerned that the development would result in the loss of part of the existing grass verge that runs between the appeal site and the highway along Wesley Road, and that a precedent might be set for further erosion of the area’s green spaces. Concerns have also been raised about the safety of pedestrians should vehicles seek to cross the pavement in front of the gates. I note the Council’s view that the works necessary to formalise an access in this location would result in harm to the appearance and amenity of the area. 7. However, the proposal before me comprises only the replacement of part of the brick wall with wooden gates. The site boundary as identified on the submitted plans is limited to the land owned by the appellant and does not include any part of the grass verge or pavement. The application form indicates that the application does not propose any new or altered vehicle or pedestrian access to or from the public highway and this is confirmed by the submitted drawings. I saw on my visit that the site is already being used to store a caravan without any formalised vehicular crossover in place. 8. I recognise that in practical terms, storing a caravan behind the gates entails onward access to the road for transportation, which must involve crossing the pavement and grass verge. However, any separate works that may be required to facilitate an acceptable means of access to the highway from the gates are beyond the scope of this appeal and may be subject to control under separate consenting procedures. Consequently, my remit in determining this appeal is limited to the effect of the development that has been applied for, specifically the wooden gates. 9. The gates themselves are of a simple, close board timber construction which at the time of my visit had a dark brown finish. They are double width, allowing passage of a caravan to a storage area within the garden, and are secured by wide wooden fence posts which sit broadly in alignment with the existing brick wall. The existing wall steps down in sections as it runs down the slope of Wesley Road and the gates are of a height generally consistent with the height of the wall. 10. Some local representations refer to black corrugated material being fixed along the bottom of the gates where the land slopes which was felt to be unsightly. At the time of my visit, this appeared to have been replaced by wood stained to match the colour of the main gate structures. I noted the presence of separate wooden pedestrian gates in the brick wall a short distance downhill which follow a comparable height and similar design to the appeal gates. Overall, I find the appearance of the gates to be acceptable in the context of the surrounding built form. 11. The gates are intended to provide caravan storage which is unlikely to generate a high frequency of use. I have noted the concerns of neighbours that a future occupier of the appeal site may wish to utilise the gates for a more intensive use such as that related to the operation of a business on the site. However, this would constitute a change of use of the land which would be likely to require separate planning consent so I am satisfied that these concerns would not be realised. Therefore, having viewed the area surrounding the appeal Appeal Decision APP/U1240/D/16/3156986 3 site, I do not consider that the character of the neighbourhood would be materially changed by the insertion of an additional set of gates in this location. 12. Having regard to all of the above matters, I conclude that the development before me causes no harm to the character and appearance of the site and surroundings. I therefore find no conflict with Policy HE2 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan Part 1 – Core Strategy (adopted 28 April 2014), which seeks to achieve high quality development that is compatible with or improves its surroundings. Conditions 13. Since the application has been made retrospectively, and the gates seen on site are consistent with the application plans, it has not been necessary to impose the standard conditions setting a time limit for commencement of the development or for compliance with plans. 14. I have considered a condition suggested by the Council in the interests of highway safety, requiring details to be submitted showing how the access, turning space and parking will be provided. In light of my findings in paragraphs 6-8 above, I do not consider that such a condition would be relevant to the development to be permitted, and therefore would not be reasonable to impose in this case. Conclusions 15. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. J F Powis INSPECTOR