Appeal 3299457

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for erection of a fence (80 cm height) extending the wall (80 cm height) bordering the property boundary facing [address] and [name], the final height is [address] ground and the fence is made of treated timber panels, at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/22/00183/FPA, dated 22 January 2022.

From my site visit I saw that development has been completed. The development appears to be in accordance with what is shown on the submitted plans, as such I have dealt with the appeal on this basis of the submitted plans.

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

The appeal site is located on a corner plot fronting [address]. Boundary treatments along [address] vary in height and design however there is an absence of tall boundary treatments. Despite some differences in appearance, the boundary treatments are in general harmony with each other in terms of their character and appearance. Moreover, the absence of tall boundary treatments creates a clear sense of balance which contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area.

The development at the appeal site has been constructed from brick and timber inset panels wrapping around the corner plot. I observed a number of examples of boundary treatments of comparable height to the appeal scheme at other corner plots in the area, including opposite the appeal site. While these are different in appearance, being natural boundary features and brick with metal railings there is a general uniformity in height. The timber inset panels have been stained brown which offers an element of visual continuity with the appearance of other boundary treatments in the area.

As such, both the height and design of the development does not result in a significantly different appearance from the other boundary treatments along [address], including those at corner plot locations. Moreover, given the comparable heights of other boundary treatments in the area, the development does not add significant visual weight or unbalance either the appeal property or the street scene. The development is a harmonious addition that contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area. As the development is complete, it is not necessary to impose any conditions.

For the reasons given above, the development is not harmful to the character and appearance of the area and accords with policies 29 and 31 of the County Durham Plan (2020). These policies, amongst other things, seek development that is well designed and contributes positively to an areas character, and would not have an unacceptable impact through visual intrusion or dominance.

The development also aligns with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (2021), set out in Section 12 regarding the need to achieve well designed places.

I have had regard to the letter of objection from a neighbour. Given the layout of the street the development is not adjacent to any neighbouring front windows and would therefore not have any clear effect with regard to overshadowing. I have given consideration to anti–social behaviour said to have been experienced by the neighbouring occupiers, but this has not lead me to any different conclusions. I note that no objection was raised on highway safety from the council’s highways team and in any event, I have not found the development to be of a significantly different height to other boundary treatments in the area.

I conclude that the development accords with the development plan. Material considerations have not been shown to carry sufficient weight as to indicate a decision otherwise than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is allowed.