Appeal 3280884

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for removal of existing fence currently running along rear boundary and between the property and [address], to be replaced with 7ft closeboard fence including gravel boards in the same location at [site address] , Rownhams [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 21/01415/FULLS, dated 11 May 2021, subject to the conditions set out below:

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

The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise in complete accordance with the approved plans: 1:1250 Site Location Plan, 1:500 Block Plan, 1:10 Elevation and 1:20 Elevation.

The main issue is the effect of the appeal proposal upon the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site is located within an established residential area which backs on to the A3057 [address]. It falls at the end of a run of dwellings leading up to [address] to the north; the host dwelling is on elevated ground such that very little privacy is afforded to its rear garden area.

The aforementioned run of [address] properties all have rear boundary fences erected on their side of the roadside ditch and vary in their appearance through a differentiation in heights, design and state of repair. The opposite side of the road is more mixed in its character with a range of commercial properties including a pet supply business, a 4x4 vehicle sales and service centre, as well as a [name] and [name]. Nonetheless directly opposite the appeal site are other rear garden boundary treatments serving dwellings which front on to [address], and also comprising a range of closeboarded fencing.

The Council point out that there is a slight decline along [address] in a south-easterly direction such that each property’s garden fence (odd nos 95 – [site address] ) is lower than its predecessor creating a staggered appearance using the topography of the land, although remaining approximately 1.8m in height. As rightly highlighted, there are examples of trellis being installed on top of fencing and whilst I am not in a position to state whether or not Planning Enforcement action can be taken against these, nonetheless they form part of the established character of the street scene. I note that the vegetation to the rear of the existing fence at no 61 has been removed, however over time no doubt this would grow back.

I accept that the proposed fence would protrude above its neighbour at no 63, although this would not be significantly so and whilst clearly it would be higher than the fencing of [address], that dwelling’s fence line demonstrates how over time its visual appearance can be softened through the growth of vegetation either side of the ditch. Furthermore, whilst fairly recently installed, it also demonstrates how the visual appearance of fencing can mellow over time.

It does appear that the rear fencing to no 5 is higher than 1.8m and notwithstanding the proposed difference in height by virtue of the slightly lower ground level, that dwelling and its setting would not be materially harmed by the proposal. I also noted on my site visit that due to the relative ground level of the rear garden of the host dwelling, the washing line and other domestic paraphernalia is clearly visible from [address] and a slight increase in the rear boundary fence would help mitigate this impact to the benefit of the character and appearance of the area. With regard to the side boundary fence adjacent to [address], it would run very approximately at right-angles to [address] and therefore its visual impact would materially reduce the further away it leads in a north-easterly direction.

Therefore, on balance, I consider that the proposed boundary fencing would preserve the character and appearance of the area and would not conflict with Policies E1 or E2 of the Test Valley Borough Local Plan 2016 which together require development to integrate, respect and complement the character of the area in which it is located, including landscape character.

For the reasons set out above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should succeed.

Other than the standard time limit condition, the Council recommends that a condition is imposed that requires the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans. I consider that in the interests of the character and appearance of the area that this condition is necessary.