New fence

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 23 June 2026 by Sarah Colebourne MA, MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date:01 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6008130 75 Brander Road, Gipton, Leeds, LS9 6PP • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Ms Hermani Charles against the decision of Leeds City Council. • The application Ref is 26/00027/FU. • The development proposed is described as a ‘new fence’. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the character of the streetscene. Reasons 3. The appeal site comprises a modern semi-detached house with a sizeable side garden in a corner position at the junction of Brender Road and Greenview Mount, within a residential area. A recently approved side extension is currently under construction. There is a drop in land levels and the Greenview Mount frontage sits at a lower level than the Brender Road frontage. It forms part of a development of houses built in a similar style. Whilst those on Greenview Mount have generally open front boundaries, those on Brender Road have mostly low brick walls with slightly taller piers with open metal railings between. Those provide a sense of openness in the street scene, whilst defining public and private spaces. 4. The boundary of the appeal dwelling comprises a similar wall of some 1m in height and taller piers with railings extending along Brender Road and around the corner. On the Greenview Mount frontage and along part of the rear boundary which adjoins a driveway, the wall increases in height slightly following the lower land level and there is vertical boarded timber fencing between the taller 1.8m high piers. A similar boundary dissects the side garden between the frontage and the side extension. 5. Behind the boundary along Greenview Mount and the rear driveway, another fence has been erected which is the subject of this appeal. It extends for some 13m or so along Greenview Mount and continues along the driveway for a further 9.5 m or so according to the plans. It is some 2.5m in height, of dark grey composite materials with spiked finials on top, which further increase its height by some 15-20cm. Appeal Decision 6008130 2 6. The prominent corner location of the appeal site means that the extent of the fence is seen clearly in the street scene of both streets. Notwithstanding the support from the appellant’s neighbours, I find that by reason of its siting behind the existing boundary, the fence appears incongruous in views along the street. Its length, height and solidity result in an overly dominant appearance and it has a severely enclosing impact on the openness of the corner and the street scene. This is exacerbated by its colour which although matching the window frames of the dwelling is significantly more dominant given its greater surface area, by its materials which have an uncharacteristically solid and uniform appearance in stark contrast to the open railings and textured brick walls of other boundaries in the area and by the spiked finials which have an overly defensive and industrial character that is inappropriate for this residential area. The appellant’s suggested amendments of removing the spikes and timber elements would not be sufficient to overcome these concerns. 7. I have given careful consideration to the safety and security concerns of the appellant. She says that she has experienced several burglaries, including a vehicle theft, at the property and seeks to protect her property and family members. Those include children and a family member with disabilities who has protected characteristics on the basis of the evidence submitted. She says that she installed the fence following advice from the police who have confirmed that and support the proposal. However, the Council has referred to West Yorkshire Police’s Burglary Prevention Toolkit which advises that a rear fence of 1.8m in height is sufficient to secure a rear garden. The remaining 1.8m boundary treatment along part of the side boundary is of that height and I saw no other boundaries of the height proposed here within the immediate area. I agree with the Council that if additional enclosure is needed, and given the sloping land within the side garden, then prickly plants (as also advised within the Toolkit) could provide the same benefits in a manner more appropriate to a residential area and it seems to me that this would be more cost effective than a fence. The Council has also suggested other alternatives that would be permitted development and not need permission and those could provide additional security during the time that planting might take to establish. Conclusion 8. I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) set out under s149 of the Equality Act 2010, but the harm caused by the proposal outweighs any benefits of increased safety and security given that there are alternatives that would be acceptable to the Council. I conclude then that, for the reasons given above, the fence significantly harms the character of the area, contrary to development plan policies P10 in the Council’s Core Strategy (as amended by the Core Strategy Selective Review 2019) and GP5 and N25 in the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006). Together those seek to ensure that proposals result in a safe and secure environment that prevents crime but are also well designed and appropriate to the area’s character. There are no material considerations that would outweigh the conflict with the development plan. I conclude that it is proportionate and necessary to dismiss the appeal. Sarah Colebourne INSPECTOR