Appeal 3297996

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development is taken from the council's decision notice as in my view this more concisely and precisely describes the development and therefore I have used it for my description.

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

The semi-detached property occupies a relatively large corner plot and is currently defined by an approximately 1.2m high boundary wall. The section of wall along [address] to the rear garden is also bound by a high hedge, whereas the section from the property’s side entrance and along the frontage to [address] is more open and in parts the wall is missing and in need of repair.

Along both roads there is a mixture of boundary treatments including walls, fences, and hedges. Nonetheless, the properties are set back, and the frontages are primarily defined by low to mid height boundary treatments which permit views of the properties and maintains a sense of space and openness.

The properties to either side of the appeal site have different boundary treatments and the limited increase to the height of the proposed fence along [address] would in general be reflective of the prevailing boundary treatments along that road. Notwithstanding this, the height of the proposed fence along [address] would be taller, at 1.8m to all but the first two panels, creating a substantial screen extending for a significant length.

Opposite the site, No.66, which is also a corner plot but is sited closer to [address], has a 1.[address]. This is however more limited in length enclosing the rear garden and along the side of the property it is set back behind a parking bay. In contrast, the appeal proposal would create a continuous length of high fencing and project forward of the building line to [address]. In my view, this would result in an incongruous and enclosing feature which would create an oppressive appearance to the entrance to [address] and would be intrusive in wider views along [address].

The appellant has drawn my attention to a range of properties with close boarded fencing within the locality and whilst I acknowledge that there is no uniformity to the boundary treatments, each case is to be considered on its own merits. As a corner plot at a road junction the appeal property has a more significant physical and visual presence in the surrounding area. In this case I find that the scale and extent of the fencing would be a prominent and visually intrusive feature which would be to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area.

The proposal would thereby conflict with policy D1 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2015-2034 which seeks high quality design that responds to distinctive local character, and policies G5 and H8 of Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 which together require development to respect the existing patterns of development and space, and that the scale, height, and materials reinforce the character of an area. The development would also be contrary to the general deign advice of the National Planning Policy Framework and National Design Guidance.

For the reasons set out and having regard to all other matters raised I dismiss the appeal.