Appeal 3288956

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The appeal site is a corner plot by the junction of [address] with [address]. It is within a small estate on the roughly north west side of [address] and in the nearby part of [address], which is mainly characterised by dwellings set in gardens with an ‘open plan’ layout facing the streets. Some gardens include shrubs, low hedges, and drives, but their largely open character and verdant appearance are important to the sense of place.

The development includes a tall close boarded fence by the back edge of the pavement around most of the roughly south east and north east facing front garden of the appeal dwelling. Due to its solid form, height and siting, the development is harmfully intrusive, and it contrasts starkly with the nearby mostly open front gardens. Moreover, due to its prominent siting by the junction, the development is an unacceptably discordant and incongruous feature in the [address] and [address] street scenes close by.

The layout of the dwellings opposite the appeal site differs because they are reached by a spur off [address]. There, the fence is partly screened by planting and within a planted strip between the spur and [address], so that does not weigh in favour. Tall close boarded fences are also not unusual by the sides and backs of back gardens. As the fences around the back garden of [address] and the back gardens of the nearby dwellings in the appellant’s photographs 1 and 2 are set back from the street in mainly grassed areas, they maintain the important local layout. The fence at [address], which is further along [address], beyond the site and its estate, and 865 other developments further away, provide little support for this damaging development because their site specific circumstances are different.

There is a private back garden at the site behind the dwelling, so the appellant’s concerns about privacy, security of his family, pets and equipment, and litter attract little weight. Moreover, occupiers of rooms and gardens facing streets would reasonably expect lower levels of privacy than in the rooms and outdoor space at the back of their home. As it is not part of the application before me, the fence between 3 and [site address] is not relevant. So, whilst all points in favour have been considered, they do not overcome the harm that the development causes.

I consider that the development harms the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It is contrary to Policy DP26 of the Mid Sussex District Plan 2014-2031 which seeks high quality design and respect for context, Policy E9 of the [site address] Town Council Neighbourhood Plan 2014-2031 which aims to protect local character, guidance in the [name] Planning Document SPD, and the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) which aims to achieve well-designed places.

I have found that the development is contrary to the Development Plan when taken as a whole. The other considerations in this case, including the Framework, do not outweigh that conflict.

For the reasons given, the appeal should be dismissed.