Appeal 3296270

The appeal is dismissed.

The description in the banner heading above includes wording that is not a description of development and which addresses the suggested merits of the case. The proposal would therefore be more appropriately described as the erection of a 1.8 metre weatherboard fence along the front and part side of property. I have considered the proposal on this basis.

It was evident on my site visit that a fence had already been constructed to the front and side of the property. This broadly accorded with the submitted plans, but for the avoidance of doubt my decision has been made on the basis of the plans.

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

The fence is located shortly after the entrance into the attractive village of Orford from the surrounding countryside. The village is located partly on the banks of the [name] and the site is within the [name] & Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

I have considered the submitted photographs and I was able to observe on my site visit that the majority of boundary treatment fronting [address] on the lead into the centre of the Village is formed of hedging. The hedging affords [address] a largely verdant appearance which contributes positively to the character and appearance of the village.

Within this setting, the tall and robust boundary fence has a stark and stand out appearance which contrasts sharply with the hedging and occasional low boundary treatment along the route towards the centre of the village. It creates a hard edge to the front of the property which is very much out of character. It is visible to many people given the prominent location of the fence on the principal route into the village.

The 1.8 metre weatherboard fence therefore has a significant adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would subsequently conflict with Policy SCLP11.1 of the East Suffolk Council - Suffolk Coastal Local Plan (2020) which amongst other things seeks to support high quality design that clearly demonstrates an understanding of the key features of local character.

The proposal also harms the scenic beauty of the AONB. I am required to afford this matter great weight by the Framework1 and this weighs further against the proposal.

I accept that hedge boundaries are likely to require maintenance, but such maintenance would not necessarily have to be provided by the occupier themselves were they unable to carry this out. Maintenance requirements do not justify the proposal and I afford this matter limited weight.

The fence provides some screening to a tank which is located within the front garden of the appeal property, but it is not of significant height, is finished in a neutral colour tone and is set down slightly below banking adjacent to the road. It would not therefore form a prominent feature in any case. I therefore afford limited weight to the screening effect of the fence.

The property appears to have a further garden to the rear which offers more privacy and I therefore afford limited weight to the privacy that the proposal provides to the front of the property.

Whilst noting the signage on the fence, I am not convinced that this is the only way to provide more clarity on the location of the property and I afford this matter limited weight.

I also noted the new housing development. This had not yet been provided with boundary treatment at the time of my visit, but I noted that a modern residential development to the west of the property incorporates hedging on the boundaries with [address].

Taking all relevant matters into account, the proposal has a significant adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area and the harm that it causes to the scenic beauty of the AONB further weighs against it.

There is no indication that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. The appeal is therefore dismissed.