Appeal 3287738

The appeal is dismissed.

At the time of my site visit, I saw that the fence had been constructed. I have dealt with the appeal on this basis.

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

The appeal site forms a corner plot at the junction between [address] and [address] and is situated diagonally opposite [site address] . It occupies a relatively prominent position in the public realm and is visible in both short and longer distance views. Boundary treatments fronting the highway in the surrounding area include generally low walls and timber fences – with hedges/vegetation visible behind – along [address] while higher timber fencing is present along the rear boundaries of the [address] properties which back on to [address]. The fence at No [address], which is situated on the other side of the junction from the site, also runs along much of that property’s [address] frontage. Although the locality therefore contains a mixture of boundary treatments facing the public realm, they generally have a modest presence due to either their low height or, in the case of the higher close boarded fencing described above, their set back from the footway and the inclusion of soft landscaping. The area in the vicinity of the site therefore has a relatively open character and verdant appearance, with boundary treatments neither dominating nor being particularly notable features in the streetscene.

With its height and lack of set-back accentuating its prominence and limiting the opportunity for soft landscaping to soften its presence, the proposed fence – which faces both [address] and [address] – reads as a stark, obtrusive and harmful element in the streetscene. Its composite material and solid grey colour draw the eye – for some distance, including from across the Heath for example – to what is a conspicuous, unsympathetic and incongruous feature that does not reflect boundary treatment found in the surrounding area and erodes the open character of the locality.

In coming to this view, I have taken into account that the proposed fence is similar in height to the close boarded fencing described above, the previous fence was longer than the proposed fence, the visual prominence of the property compared to the appeal proposal, and that buildings in the locality are not designated heritage assets or within a conservation area. Although the built environment in the surrounding area includes various grey elements, such as cladding, fenestration, driveways, walls, fences of various heights, grey painted buildings and the nearby pub’s conservatory, I observed on my site visit that such materials and features are not notable or defining characteristics of the area. Accordingly, the existence of such elements neither make the development acceptable nor lead me to a different conclusion.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area. I therefore find that it does not accord with Policies DM1 and DM9 of the Maidstone Borough Local Plan (2017). Amongst other aspects, these seek development with good design and set out that proposals which respond positively to local character, retain traditional boundary treatment of the area and fit unobtrusively with the context will be permitted. The proposal would also be inconsistent with the guidance on boundaries in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document, [name] (2009).

I acknowledge that the appellant found the previous one metre high fence did not offer privacy to the property’s main garden and the family dog was able to jump over it, creating a dangerous situation for the dog and highway users. The proposed fence is said to have been complimented by various neighbours, keeps the dog(s) in and safe, and reduces the amount of rubbish being blown into the garden from the road. It has been put to me that the fence, providing privacy for the family and visitors, is also an environmentally friendly composite made from 95% recycled material and will not need annual maintenance with harmful chemicals. Be that as it may, the harm I have identified above, which could not be overcome by the imposition of planning conditions, and the conflict with the development plan are not outweighed by these considerations. Given the development’s harm on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, it does also not adequately address the social and environmental roles of sustainable development as set out in paragraph 8 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

For the above reasons, the appeal is dismissed.