Appeal 3279657

The appeal is dismissed.

I have used the description of the development from the Council’s decision notice. It adequately and simply describes the proposed development instead of the longer and detailed description given on the application form.

The fence has been constructed and the appeal is therefore being assessed retrospectively.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.

The site is a corner plot located on the junction of [address] and [address] (a cul-de-sac). The site is located in a predominantly residential suburban area characterised by similarly designed dwellings set back from the highway.

[address] is characterised by dwellings of a similar design, with both detached and terraced dwellings. Dwellings on [address] largely have open frontages and where there are boundary treatments these utilise landscaping and hedgerows or low walls/fences, which creates a soft open character.

The front and side boundaries of the appeal site are clearly visible from the surrounding footways and roads. The development introduces a tall fence for much of the length of the access to [address]. Given the height, length and prominence of the fence, it creates a large, obtrusive and incongruous feature in the street scene which is at odds with the aforementioned soft open character.

Consequently, I find the development would be in conflict with the relevant elements of Policy SD4 of the Gloucester, Cheltenham and [name] (2017) and Policy BE.19 of the Gloucester Local Plan (2002) which seek, amongst other things, to ensure that all new development respects the character of the site and its surroundings and does not harm the visual amenity of the locality. The appeal scheme would also be contrary to paragraph 130 of the Framework that seeks good design sympathetic to the local character.

The appellant has also noted the benefits of the scheme in terms of hedgerow encroachment, safety and privacy, a larger playing area for children, time spent improving the garden to the benefit of the locality and that an area where litter was dropped has been removed. I also note that information received from the [name] did not advise of the requirement for planning permission.

I recognise the points raised and understand the appellant’s rationale for the development. Nevertheless, those are essentially personal benefits, and my decision focusses on the public acceptability of the scheme. Moreover, there is no robust evidence before me indicating that the particular scheme before me is the sole means of achieving such benefits. The benefits of the scheme do not therefore outweigh the harm arising.

For the above reasons, there are no relevant material considerations, including the approach of the Framework, that would indicate a decision otherwise in accordance with the development plan. It is for this reason that the appeal should be dismissed.