2 metre high fence

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 January 2018 by Helen Hockenhull BA(Hons) B.Pl MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 17 January 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/M0655/D/17/3187031 18 Heyes Drive, Lymm, Warrington WA13 0PB  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 Miss Jenni Dixon against the decision of Warrington Borough Council.  The application Ref 2017/30324, dated 28 April 2017, was refused by notice dated 3 August 2017.  The development proposed is a 2 metre high fence. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues in this case are the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area and on highway safety. Reasons Character and appearance 3. The appeal property forms a semi-detached bungalow located on the corner of Heyes Drive and Lyme Grove in Lymm. The property has grassed front and side garden areas and a detached garage accessed from Lyme Grove. The appeal proposes a 2 metre high close boarded timber fence extending from the front corner of the property to enclose the majority of the side garden area. 4. The residential estate in which the appeal dwelling is located is generally open plan in character, comprising areas of grass with planted beds as well as driveways. I noted on my site visit that there are some properties with front boundary walls but these are generally low in height around 0.5 metres so that the open character of the area is maintained. 5. Both main parties have made reference to other corner plots where 2 metre high fences have been erected. It appears that many of these do not benefit from planning permission. Furthermore as they appear to have been place for some time they are most likely to be exempt from enforcement action. In any event I do not consider that these examples should be viewed as being reflective of the overall character of the area. Appeal Decision APP/M0655/D/17/3187031 2 6. The appeal property is in a prominent corner location and the proposed fence would be visible from both Heyes Drive and Lyme Grove. It would form an incongruous feature out of character with the generally open nature of the surrounding residential estate. 7. On my site visit I particularly noted the 2 metre high fences to the side boundaries of 28 and 30 Hardy Road. These form corner properties at the other end of Lyme Grove. I accept that these dwellings front onto Hardy Road where the prevailing character is different; however their side boundaries face Lyme Grove. In this position they contribute to the character of the area in which the appeal scheme would be located. Collectively I consider the proposed fence and these existing fences would further increase the sense of enclosure on Lyme Grove to the detriment of the street scene and the visual amenity of the area. 8. Bringing the above points together, I consider that the appeal proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the local area. It would therefore conflict with Policies CS1 and QE7 of the Warrington Local Plan Core Strategy 2014. These policies seek to ensure high quality design having regard to local distinctiveness and encourage development that enhances the character and appearance of the street scene and local area. There would also be conflict with a core planning principle of the National Planning Policy Framework, which seeks to always secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity. Highway safety 9. In order to meet the requirements of Manual for Streets, a visibility splay of 2.4 metres by 25 metres should be provided from the driveway of the appeal property. The position of the proposed 2 metre high fence would prevent such a sight line being achieved. It would therefore as currently designed, provide substandard visibility for vehicles emerging from the driveway and also create potential highway safety issues for pedestrians. 10. The appellant has commented that the fence could be amended to ensure that the required sight line is achieved. I agree that this would be feasible and could be secured through the imposition of a suitably worded condition in the event that the appeal is allowed. 11. The Council has also raised concern that the appeal scheme would adversely affect forward visibility at the junction of Heyes Drive and Lyme Grove. The fence would be positioned no further forward than the front wall of the appeal dwelling, a distance of over 8 metres from the highway. I acknowledge that a vehicle turning left from Heyes Drive into Lyme Grove would have reduced visibility. However the vehicle would be travelling at a low speed and I consider that there would be adequate visibility for a driver to see any obstruction or hazard. 12. I therefore conclude that the appeal scheme would not have a harmful effect on highway safety, having particular regard to vehicle and pedestrian safety. The proposal would therefore comply with Policy QE6 of the Council’s Core Strategy. I also find no conflict with the paragraph 32 of the Framework which requires development to secure a safe and suitable access for all people. Appeal Decision APP/M0655/D/17/3187031 3 Other matters 13. The appellant has commented that the appeal property has a very small rear garden area. The dwelling forms a 2 bed family house where a larger secure garden area would be desirable, particularly for young children. Whilst I agree that this would be a benefit of the scheme, it would not outweigh the harm I have found to the character and appearance of the area. Conclusion 14. Notwithstanding my finding with regard to highway safety, the harm I have found in respect to the character and appearance of the area is a compelling and overriding consideration in this case. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed. Helen Hockenhull INSPECTOR