To remove wall that was unsafe as bricks had been stolen and erect a fence with concrete posts

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 13 March 2019 by Ann Skippers BSc (Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 09th April 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/M1595/D/18/3218177 16 Rowley Road, Orsett, Grays, Essex RM16 3ET • 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. Gail Adkins against the decision of Thurrock Borough Council. • The application Ref 18/01178/HHA, dated 14 August 2018, was refused by notice dated 29 October 2018. • The development proposed is “to remove wall that was unsafe as bricks had been stolen and erect a fence with concrete posts”. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural matters 2. I saw at my site visit the fence has been erected. 3. However, a set of amended drawings has also been submitted in response to concerns raised on highway safety grounds which show sight visibility splays. I checked with the appellant and the Council which drawings the refusal relates to. I am advised that the Council considered the ‘squared off’ drawings and this reflects what has been constructed on the site. 4. I do not consider the development between the two schemes to be so changed that it would deprive those originally consulted upon the development the opportunity of a further consultation. In particular the Council’s Highways Development Control have been consulted on the amended drawings and I am mindful that the development could be conditioned to include the sight visibility splays. I am therefore proceeding on the basis of considering the drawings that the Council determined, namely the ‘squared off’ development that I saw on site, but will also make a comment on the amended drawings given my view that the development could be conditioned to achieve the sight visibility splays if that was deemed appropriate. 5. I note that there are two trees subject to a Tree Preservation Order in the vicinity of the development. The Council has not raised any concerns in this regard and I have no reason to disagree with their stance. Appeal Decision APP/M1595/D/18/3218177 2 Main issues 6. The two main issues are the effect of the fence • on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area and • on pedestrian and highway safety. Reasons Character and appearance 7. No 16 is an end terraced property on the corner of Rowley Road and Wingfield Drive. 8. This residential estate is characterised by its openness. There are open grass verges, low railings, hedges and where there are walls these tend to be stepped back. 9. In contrast the fence appears as an alien feature. The siting of the fence, its height and materials are visually intrusive. It dominates this corner plot detracting from the openness of the area, an essential defining characteristic that helps to give the area a sense of place. 10. Even with the holly planted in front which helps to soften its impact, the fence looks out of place. This is because its position reduces the open character typical of the grass verges that act as gateways into the estate. 11. Different treatment such as weather proofing or a different colour would not increase the development’s acceptability. 12. The development therefore harms the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. This is contrary to Policies CST22 and PMD2 of the Core Strategy and Policies for Management of Development (as amended) adopted in January 2015. Both policies promote high quality design and in particular seek proposals that are founded on a thorough understanding of and respond positively to the local context and sensitivity of the site and its surroundings including respecting distinct characteristics and a sense of place. The policies reflect the stance taken by the National Planning Policy Framework. Pedestrian and highway safety 13. The Council considers that the fence will cause pedestrian and highway safety concerns in relation to the garage and parking space in front of the garage. Sight visibility splays were requested. I saw at my visit that sight visibility splays would enhance the visibility for drivers and pedestrians and that this would satisfactorily address the second reason for refusal. This could have been the subject of a condition had the appeal been allowed. 14. However, this would not overcome or outweigh the other harm I have identified from the effect of the siting, height and materials of the fence. Matters raised by the appellant not covered elsewhere 15. The appellant indicates that a wall was unsafe and also experienced unsocial behaviour and rubbish tipping alongside the wall. A safe and secure Appeal Decision APP/M1595/D/18/3218177 3 environment is an important consideration. There is no explanation before me as to why a replacement wall could not be constructed and bricks, as a material, would be more in keeping with the design and appearance of the locality. There may also be other solutions such as landscaping that would help to reduce the issues experienced. These matters, whilst unfortunate, do not outweigh the harm caused to character and appearance. 16. My attention has been drawn to other similar development in the locality and I saw this at my visit. It is very rare for two developments or sites to be exactly the same. In any case, the development serves to illustrate the visual harm caused to the locality and reinforces my concern about it. 17. The Council has not raised any concerns in respect of the effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. I have no reason to disagree with their stance, but this is a neutral factor in the planning balance. 18. The appellant indicates that correspondence about the fence has been ongoing for some time. There is some dispute about whether permission is needed and perhaps some confusion about technical consents needed. These are matters between the two parties and are not before me. Conclusion 19. For the reasons given above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude the appeal should be dismissed. Ann Skippers INSPECTOR