Appeal 3302917

The appeal is dismissed.

The development was carried out prior to the application to the Council. The appellant has advised that the replacement fence continues at the rear of the property along the shared boundary with No.[address] but that part of the fence constitutes permitted development and is not part of the appeal.

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

No. [site address] is a two-storey semi-detached house located at the junction of [address] and [address]. The property is within a modern housing estate comprised of detached and semi-detached houses of similar form and character. The open plan design of this part of the estate, with lawned areas and shrub planting, provides an attractive environment and makes a positive contribution towards the character and appearance of the streetscene.

The appellant has advised that the original fencing was set around 0.6 metres from the back edge of the footway to [address], adjacent to the rear garden, with a strip of grass and some limited low-level shrubs. The grassed area alongside the side of the house was approximately 1.2 metres in depth.

The fencing which has been installed encloses a greater portion of land at the rear of the footway for [address] and next to the side of the building, increasing its prominence when seen from [address] and [address], and eroding the open plan layout. The increased amount of fencing and additional enclosure of land is detrimental to the character and appearance of the area. This is because of the siting, height and increased length of the fencing, which creates an adverse visual impact in the street scene.

The proposal would therefore conflict with [site address] Local Plan Core Strategy policy CP1 which seeks to ensure that proposals will maintain or enhance the overall character and appearance of the local environment. It would fail to comply with policy GEN8 of the [site address] Unitary Development Plan which requires development to respect its local setting. It would also conflict with the objective in the National Planning Policy Framework of achieving well designed places.

The appellant refers to other examples of fencing along [address], including a cluster at Nos.32, 34, 35, 39 and 53, which I viewed at my site visit. However these are not seen in direct conjunction with the appeal site and the enclosure of properties which has resulted contrasts sharply with the generally open character of the estate elsewhere. There is a short section of fencing at No.[address], but that does not enclose land between the rear of the footway and the side of the building facing The Croft. Overall, these examples do not justify allowing harmful development at the appeal site. In terms of maintenance, I consider that it is neither necessary nor desirable to erect a fence to ensure that the area of land next to the side of the appeal building is maintained.

I have taken all other matters raised into account, including the letters of support for the fencing. However, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.