Appeal 3297882

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a fence (retrospective) at [site address] CT1 in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/20/02800, dated 8 December 2020, and the plans submitted with it (site location plan, block plan, floor plan and elevations as shown on drawing no. P01).

At my site visit, I saw that the development has been completed and I note that the application has been submitted retrospectively.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupants of adjacent properties in respect of overbearing impact.

The appeal site relates to a [name] listed, mid-terrace dwelling on [address], located in the [address], [address] and St Lawrence Conservation Area. The surrounding neighbourhood is predominantly residential in nature, with sporadic commercial premises.

The fence is clearly evident from the rear windows and patio door of [address], adding development on the common boundary (it does not appear to have a material impact on any other neighbouring residence in the immediate vicinity). Nevertheless, I observed that the rear garden of no.3 is already partially enclosed and dominated by the substantial two-storey side wall of the outrigger to no.4, and the height of the panels broadly reflects other boundary treatments within the surrounds, including the hedgerow on the border between 3 and [address]. _________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________

Within this context and given its position towards the rear of the curtilage of no.3, to my mind the fence is sufficiently distant from the rear windows and patio door of no.3 such that it does not result in an adverse overbearing impact. I am also aware that the fence provides for a privacy screen between the rear gardens of nos. 3 and 4, which is a benefit of the scheme. Taken in the round, whilst I acknowledge that there is some effect, I consider that any overbearing impact is not so harmful as to warrant dismissal of the appeal.

I conclude that the scheme would not be deleterious to the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring properties in relation to overbearing impact. It meets DBE3 and DBE6 of the Canterbury District Local Plan July 2017, which seek to ensure that development does not prejudice the environment or amenity of the occupiers of adjacent properties. It would also be consistent with the advice in the National Planning Policy Framework, which advocates secure safe and healthy living conditions.

The Council is satisfied that the proposal would not harm the setting of the Listed Building or the wider character and appearance of the [address], [address] and St Lawrence Conservation Area within which the site is located. I have no reason to disagree, and I consider that the significance of the heritage asset would be unharmed.

I have considered the imposition of conditions in light of advice in Planning Policy Guidance and the Framework. The development is complete and therefore the standard time limit and plans condition are no longer necessary. I am satisfied that no conditions are required.

Based on the preceding and accounting for all matters raised the appeal is allowed.