Appeal 3280505

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for erection of fence and gate to side boundary to overall height of 1.85 metres with element above 1 metre to be ‘hit and miss’ style at [site address] , Freckleton, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 21/0393, dated 26 April 2021, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan; 2021-1573-03; 2021- 1573-06b; 2021-1573-07b.

The proposed gate and fencing shall be stained with a dark brown wood stain and shall thereafter be maintained as such.

The Council adopted the [name] of the Fylde Local Plan in December 2021, after its refusal of planning permission. This included a new version of Policy GD7, which superseded the previous version referred to in the Decision Notice. In these circumstances, I am required to determine the appeal against the current development plan for the area at the time of my decision.

The description of development given on the planning application form states that the application is retrospective in nature. However, the existing fence and gate fronting onto [address] have a closeboard appearance, whereas those shown in the submitted plans have a ‘hit and miss’ style above 1 metre in height. In these circumstances, I am required to determine the appeal based on the submitted drawings.

The description of development given in my formal decision is taken from the Decision Notice rather than the planning application form, as this provides a more accurate description of the development.

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

The appeal property is a semi-detached bungalow occupying a corner plot at the junction between [address] and [address]. It sits within a modern estate that has a relatively consistent character, with most front boundaries comprising low brick walls and mature planting.

The proposed gate and fencing would run along the back edge of the footway and would enclose the side and rear garden next to [address]. Whilst the height and style would differ from the boundary treatments to adjoining properties there are similar timber fences to the side and rear of several nearby corner plots. In this regard, comparable boundary fencing to corner plots are visible along [address], [address], and elsewhere in the vicinity. The proposed gate and fence would therefore not appear out of place and would be consistent with the character of the surrounding area. Moreover, they would have a relatively sympathetic appearance in the street if treated in a dark stain, which could be secured by condition.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the development would not significantly harm the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore accord with Strategic Policy GD7 of the Fylde Local Plan to 2032 (incorporating [name]), which seeks to ensure that layout, design, and materials relate well to the surrounding context. It would also be consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework, which seeks to achieve well designed places.

A section of the proposed fencing extends along the boundary with No [address], and would remain closeboard in its appearance. Whilst this fencing somewhat restricts visibility from the adjacent access to No 4, I note that this property benefits from 2 vehicular access points. Moreover, any vehicle leaving the property from this access would be travelling at low speeds and the driveway is not directly onto the highway. I further note that the Highway Authority has confirmed that it has no objection to the development on highway safety grounds.

The standard time limit condition is necessary given that the proposed fencing and gate differ from that which currently exist. I have also imposed a condition that requires the development to accord with the approved plans, which is necessary in the interest of certainty. A further condition relating to the treatment of the proposed fencing and gate is necessary in order to preserve the character and appearance of the area.

Separately, the Council suggested a condition that would have required the existing fencing and gate to be modified within 3 months of the date of this decision. However, it is unclear how the proposal would be installed, and this could also be achieved by replacing the existing fencing and gate. In any case, the Council would be able to enforce against any non-compliance with the approved plans, and so this condition is unnecessary.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.