Case 3361094

Greengates House, 123 Chickenley Lane, Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, WF12 8QS

Kirklees Metropolitan Council — appeal dismissed

Outcome
Dismissed
Decision date
9 June 2025
Authority
Kirklees Metropolitan Council
Inspector
Eggleton P
Procedure
Written Representations
Casework type
Planning Appeal
Type detail
Planning Appeals - Full
Development type
Other minor developments
Appellant
Muhammed Hussain
LPA reference
2024/62/93042/E
ONS LPA code
E08000034
Jurisdiction
Transferred
Link status
Not Linked
Start date
7 March 2025

Summary AI

The appeal for a fence was dismissed due to concerns over the fence's design and its impact on the character and appearance of the area. The inspector considered the proposal on the basis of a child minding business, but found the design to be poor and insufficient to outweigh concerns about security and amenity issues.

Generated from the decision letter — check against the original before relying on it.

PDF text

Page 1 · Chunk 0 Appeal Decision

Greengates House, 123 Chickenley Lane, Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, WF12 8QS — Kirklees Metropolitan Council — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 27 May 2025 by P Eggleton BSc(Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 09 June 2025 Appeal Ref: APP/Z4718/W/25/3361094 Greengates House, 123 Chickenley Lane, Dewsbury, West Yorkshire WF12 8QS • 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 Mr Muhammed Hussain against the decision of Kirklees Council. • The application reference is 2024/62/93042/E. • The development proposed is a fence. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. Part of the fence, to the front boundary of the house, has already been partially erected. This clearly demonstrates that a fence of the proposed design, above the existing wall, results in considerable harm to the character and appearance of the area. Any addition to the length of this fence would result in even greater harm. It would conflict with the design objectives of policy LP24a of the Kirklees Local Plan 2019 as it would not respect and enhance the character of the townscape.

Page 1 · Chunk 1 Appeal Decision

Greengates House, 123 Chickenley Lane, Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, WF12 8QS — Kirklees Metropolitan Council — Appeal Decision It would represent particularly poor design and would therefore be contrary to the design expectations of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 which is clear that development that is not well designed should be refused. 4. The council have suggested that further information would be required to ensure that there was not a concern with regard to visibility from the access. The property already has high gate piers and the wall to the right of the access, when leaving the site, is also relatively high. The proposed changes would not materially alter driver visibility with regard to oncoming vehicles or pedestrians. 5. The appellant advises that a secure boundary is necessary for the use of the property as a child minding business and is required by the Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills (Ofsted). It would also offer increased safety by preventing children from climbing over the wall, so avoiding the potential for road accidents. It would also reduce the potential for antisocial behaviour such as littering by passers-by, theft and fly tipping. The appellant advises that the fence is supported by the neighbouring resident. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Page 2 · Chunk 2 Appeal Decision

Greengates House, 123 Chickenley Lane, Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, WF12 8QS — Kirklees Metropolitan Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision: APP/Z4718/W/25/3361094 6. It is unclear from the planning history provided or the information presented, what the scope or details of the child minding use would be. It is not evident from the council’s report that the use was considered by them. However, I have considered the proposal on the basis of the described use as a child minding business. This is not a determination as to whether such a use would be lawful. No information has been provided with regard to the particular Ofsted requirements referenced but I am aware of the Department for Education requirements for schools. If a high boundary is essential, this proposal represents a particularly poor design for such a feature, particularly as much of the boundary is exposed to public view and is prominent in such views. As security could be achieved by an alternative, less visually detrimental form of enclosure, this adds to my concern that the proposal represents poor design. 7. Whilst I afford considerable weight to the security and amenity issues raised, these are not sufficient to outweigh my concerns, given the particular design details already in place and put forward. I therefore dismiss the appeal.

Page 2 · Chunk 3 Peter Eggleton

Greengates House, 123 Chickenley Lane, Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, WF12 8QS — Kirklees Metropolitan Council — Peter Eggleton INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Extracted from the decision letter PDF and shown in full, chunk by chunk.

Main issues and findings

Character and appearance
Against appellant
¶3

The proposed fence would result in considerable harm to the character and appearance of the area, particularly due to its design which does not respect and enhance the character of the townscape.

Living conditions
Against appellant
¶5

The proposed fence would offer increased safety by preventing children from climbing over the wall, but the design is particularly poor and would have a detrimental impact on the living conditions of those in the area.

Parking
Neutral
¶4

The proposed changes would not materially alter driver visibility with regard to oncoming vehicles or pedestrians.

External appearance
Against appellant
¶6

The proposed fence would represent poor design, particularly as much of the boundary is exposed to public view and is prominent in such views.

Other
Against appellant
¶7

While security and amenity issues were raised, they were not sufficient to outweigh the inspector's concerns about the design of the fence.

Policies relied on

Reference Weight
LP24a
Determinative
National Planning Policy Framework 2024
Determinative

Site constraints from the Casework Database

Conservation area
Green belt
Listed building setting
AONB
SSSI
Flooding an issue

Source

Decision letter, 2 pages, issued by the Planning Inspectorate on 9 June 2025 under the Open Government Licence.