To install a gated access into our boundary wall

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15 May 2018 by K E Down MA (Oxon) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 5 June 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/Z2830/D/18/3195687 12 Wolseley Close, Brackley, NN13 6FJ  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 Alison Mackie against the decision of South Northamptonshire Council.  The application Ref S/2017/2442/FUL, dated 14 September 2017, was refused by notice dated 24 November 2017.  The development proposed is to install a gated access into our boundary wall. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted to install a gated access into the boundary wall at 12 Wolseley Close, Brackley, NN13 6FJ in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref S/2017/2442/FUL, dated 14 September 2017, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and details: Site location plan as Land Registry conveyance plan for Plot 117, Block Plan, Ariel [sic] View and Front Elevation plan, Gate images 1 & 2, Gate colour document, three photographs 1a, 2a and 3a identifying gate location. 3) The gate hereby approved shall not be hung, or at any time thereafter altered to hang, so as to open outwards over the public highway. Procedural matter 2. The original application specified a solid wooden gate. The appeal documents propose a different gate of black railings. However, I am unable to consider this amendment because it would not be the scheme consulted on and considered by the Council. If I was to take it into account now, that would deny both the Council and interested parties the right to make representations on this alteration. I have therefore considered the scheme as originally submitted, with the solid wooden gate. Appeal Decision APP/Z2830/D/18/3195687 2 Main Issues 3. There are two mai n issues. Firstly, the effect of the proposed gate on the character and appearance of the surrounding area; and secondly, the effect of the gate on the living conditions of nearby occupiers with respect to security and nuisance. Reasons 4. The appeal dwelling is a modern detached house on a new housing estate on the edge of Brackley. It faces Poppyfields Way which provides access to the estate from the Northampton Road, a main route into Brackley. However, it is cut off from this highway by a brick wall and gains pedestrian and vehicular access via Wolseley Close. The proposed gate would be installed in the brick wall in front of the appeal dwelling, providing direct pedestrian access to Poppyfields Way and the open space opposite. It would also provide a noticeably shorter walking route to the main road and the nearest convenience store. At this point the wall is over 1m in height on the Poppyfields Way side but about 0.7m on the side of the appeal dwelling. The gate would be about 0.9m high and of solid timber in a walnut finish. 5. Although there are no similar gates in the boundary wall separating Wolseley Close from Poppyfields Way there are numerous examples of timber gates visible in the vicinity, including a high solid timber side gate and a lower, five- bar style gate both giving direct access onto Poppyfields Way. In addition, within a short distance of the appeal dwelling, there is a black metal gate set into a low section of boundary railings, providing access between Poppyfields Way and a private drive in Wolseley Close and, in the opposite direction, a gap in railings where it appears that a gate has been removed. I am therefore satisfied that the proposed gate would not be alien in the street scene either in itself or in terms of the proposed materials. 6. The Council suggests that the wall is an important design element and that the houses have been orientated to positively address the public realm. However, because the wall separates the houses from the street this appears to negate much of the feeling of connection between the public and private realm. A number of nearby dwellings do connect directly with Poppyfields Way, having small front gardens separated from the street by open railings and pedestrian gates leading to front doors. These present a more integrated street scene and enhance the character and appearance of Poppyfields Way. I am therefore satisfied that improving the connection between the appeal property and Poppyfields Way through the installation of the proposed gate would not detract from the street scene. 7. It is concluded on the first main issue that the proposed gate would have no materially detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. In consequence, it would comply with Policies G3 (A) and EV1 (II and IV) of the South Northamptonshire Local Plan (LP), 1997, and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which, taken together, expect new development to be of a good design that is compatible with the existing character of the area in terms of type, scale, siting, design and materials, and has a satisfactory relationship with adjoining land and buildings. Appeal Decision APP/Z2830/D/18/3195687 3 8. Turning to the effect on living conditions the proposed gate, despite giving access onto a private drive, could be mistaken for a public right of way between Poppyfields Way and Wolseley Close. However, its distance from and relationship with the public highway in Wolseley Close would be similar to that of the existing private pedestrian gate. I am not therefore convinced by the evidence that the proposed gate would lead to any material increase in pedestrian movement through the close. Moreover, the gate is directly overlooked by the appeal dwelling, further reducing the likelihood of it being accidentally mistaken for a public right of way. 9. Even if members of the public used the gate, the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance, “Planning Out Crime in Northamptonshire” (SPG), adopted 2003, points out in section 5.1 that a well connected network of streets contributes to personal safety and security of property by encouraging genuine pedestrian activity which helps provide natural surveillance and a degree of self policing. This accords with advice set out in the national Planning Practice Guidance. Therefore additional footfall through Wolseley Close is more likely to improve safety and security than the converse. Equally, I am not convinced that pedestrians simply taking a short cut through the close would cause any material nuisance. 10. The Council, the Crime Prevention Design Advisor for Northamptonshire Police and a number of nearby residents suggest that the gate would result in a “leaking cul-de-sac” that could increase crime. It is important to get the balance right in terms of the degree of connectivity in a development, so as not to provide undue escape routes for criminals. Nevertheless, in this case the wall and railings between Wolseley Close and Poppyfields Way are, in places and close to the appeal dwelling, about 0.7m high on both sides. This would not cause a significant impediment to most criminals who would simply step over the low barrier. To my mind that is more likely than using a private drive and gate which might be subject to surveillance. I am thus not convinced by the evidence that the proposed gate would have any material effect on the “leakiness” of Wolseley Close or to the risk of crime in the area. 11. It is concluded on the second main issue that the proposed gate would have no materially detrimental effect on the living conditions of nearby occupiers with respect to security or nuisance. In consequence there would be no conflict with LP Policy G3 (P), the SPG, or the NPPF which, taken together, expect development to have full regard to the needs of security and crime prevention in order to create safe and accessible environments. 12. The Council is concerned that the proposed gate, if permitted, would set a precedent for other similar gates and potentially encourage parking on Poppyfields Way. However, each development should be determined on its own merits, which is what I have done, and as some dwellings nearby already have direct access to Poppyfields Way I consider that any additional parking on that street resulting from the proposed gate would be negligible. 13. In addition to the statutory commencement condition, the Council suggests a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans. I agree this is necessary in order to provide certainty. I intend to extend the requirement to include details of the proposed gate. However, a Appeal Decision APP/Z2830/D/18/3195687 4 condition requiring the use of matching materials would not be appropriate since the gate is not an extension and the materials are not intended to match either the boundary wall or materials used in the external surfaces of the dwelling. Finally, the Highway Authority requests a condition requiring the gate not to be hung so that it opens over the public highway. I agree this is necessary in order to protect users of the public highway and I shall attach a suitable condition. A further suggested condition requiring loose bound material to be replaced by bound surfacing is not necessary because the majority of surfacing on both sides of the boundary wall is already bound. 14. The appellant offers a condition requiring the gate to be fitted with a lock and kept locked when not in use. However, in view of the other nearby gate, which does not appear to lock, and the low boundary I do not consider this necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. 15. For the reasons set out above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. K E Down INSPECTOR