Appeal 3297145

The appeal is dismissed.

Retention is not an act of development under the above Planning Act. I have assessed the proposal as one that seeks planning permission for the fence.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed fence on the character and appearance of the local area.

The appeal property is a detached bungalow that occupies a prominent corner plot at the junction of [address] and [address] within a mainly residential area. Most properties in the area surrounding the site are set back from the road behind enclosed gardens and driveways. From what I saw, hedgerows, walls and fences generally mark the front boundaries of properties in the vicinity of the site. With a small number of exceptions, these boundary features are low-level, and they contribute to a sense of informality and an open feel within the street scene of which No 1 forms part, which is distinctive.

The proposal is to retain the existing timber fence along the front boundary of the site at a reduced height of 1.2-metres between a hedgerow on one side and a brick pier and a pair of metal gates on the other. It follows a similar proposal to retain the existing fence at a higher level than the proposal before me that was recently dismissed at appeal1. [name] have taken into account this previous decision, I have assessed the proposal on its own merits. 1 [name]/E2001/D/21/3275013 dated 21 September 2021

Even at a reduced height and painted green to subdue its visual impact, the fence, as proposed, would be a conspicuous feature within the local street scene given the considerable length of the structure and its prominent position alongside the adjacent footway. On the approaches to the site along [address] and [address], the fence, as proposed, would appear as a rather stark, formal barrier. Its general appearance would sharply contrast with the more informal, low-key frontages that predominate in the local area. The uncompromising solid presence of the fence, as proposed, would also be at odds with the spacious feel in the local street scene. In that context, the proposal would be an obtrusive and uncharacteristic feature even among the varied boundary treatments in the local area. As a result, the proposal does not overcome the objections raised in relation to the previous appeal.

From what I observed, boundary fences visible from the road are not an unfamiliar feature of properties in the local area. However, I saw few examples of fences with the same prominence in the local street scene as the site. Consequently, these cases are not directly comparable with the proposal before me. I also observed several boundary hedgerows in the local area, and some were substantial features. However, these hedgerows are far softer in their appearance than the development sought.

On the main issue, I conclude that the fence, as proposed, would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the local area. As such, it is contrary to Policy ENV1 of the East Riding Local Plan Strategy Document. This policy aims to ensure that development is well designed and has regard to the character of the surrounding area. It is also at odds with the National Planning Policy Framework, which seeks to ensure that development is visually attractive and adds to the overall quality of the area.

Reference is made to an email sent by the Council in which it clearly indicated that a boundary fence up to 1.2-metres in height may well be acceptable. Had the scheme been refined to reflect the Council’s advice at that time, it is possible that planning permission would have been granted. However, that advice was provided in relation to an earlier planning application in the light of the circumstances at that time and the opportunity was not taken up.

The Council acknowledges that a fence could be erected in the same position as the proposal through the exercise of permitted development (PD) rights. However, a PD compliant scheme would require the fence to be lower in height than the proposal. As a result, it would have a less harmful visual impact than the appeal scheme. I, therefore, share the Council’s view that the existence of PD rights is insufficient reason to justify the development sought.

I acknowledge that the fence would provide additional security of the property and help to address problems such as litter. [name] have some sympathy for these points, personal circumstances rarely outweigh more general planning considerations. These matters do not outweigh the harm that I have identified.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.