Appeal 3304098

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of 2 x sets of entrance gates and piers, and 1.5m high fence on the [address] frontage; erection of 2m high front boundary fence on the [address] frontage and alterations to existing accesses, at [site address] , Surrey in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref. PLAN/2021/1289, dated 9 November 2021 and subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: [name]. P001; P002; P003 [name]; P005 [name]; P006 [name], and with the ‘Arboricultural Report To Accompany Planning Application’ dated December 2021;

Within three months of this Decision, a hard and soft landscaping scheme showing details of shrubs, trees and hedges to be planted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The landscaping shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details within the first planting season (November – March) and maintained thereafter. Any retained or newly planted trees, shrubs or hedges which die, become seriously damaged or diseased or are removed or destroyed within a period of five years from the date of planting shall be replaced during the next planting season with specimens of the same size and species unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area. I note that the Council’s decision refers only to character, but in this case it is clear that the appearance of the site from the public realm is a major determinant of its character.

I saw on my visit that the appeal property is located on one of the two corners of the [address] and [address] junction. The officer’s report explains that this falls within [name] 1 as defined in the Pyford Neighbourhood Plan 2017 and comprises ‘larger detached houses in substantial sylvan settings, generally with roads having grass verges and mature landscaping’. Policy BE3 of the Plan seeks to safeguard this character and appearance, whilst Policies CS21 and CS24 of the [name] 2012 are also referred to in the Council’s Notice of Refusal as being contravened.

The appeal proposal affects two road frontages which are quite different in character. [address] has greater plot widths and the buildings set further back from the road, with the intervening area characterised by dense shrubbery and large trees. However, there are several properties that have a close-boarded fence erected hard to the pavement edge.

The appellant has also erected a close-boarded boundary fence as part of the proposal, but crucially set back from the pavement with a hedge planted along its length. When the hedge grows to the height of the fence or higher, I consider that the boundary treatment will be in keeping with the prevailing character and appearance of the road.

As regards [address], this has a more open frontage with a more intensive development pattern. There is clearly more potential for harm to be caused along this road by the type of frontage treatment proposed in this appeal. However, given their corner position with [address] I consider that both the appeal property and No. 1 opposite are of a transitional nature. The rather different character and appearance of [address] turns the corner into [address] and in this context I note that No. 1 has a degree of enclosure with a frontage post and rail fence.

In my view the 1.5m high wooden fence with the hedge planted in front of it and complemented by the grass verge provide an attractive boundary treatment which is appropriate for this corner site with its transitional character. The arguments in favour of the proposed pillars and gates are more finely balanced, but their design is of a high standard. And with brickwork that, as indicated, would harmonise with that of the dwelling I consider on balance that the proposal would be acceptable.

Overall, I conclude that there would be no harmful conflict with the Council’s policies as summarised in paragraph 3 above. I shall therefore allow the appeal and grant planning permission. A condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans is needed for the avoidance of doubt and is in the interests of proper planning. A landscaping condition will ensure that the development remains in keeping with the verdant character and appearance of the site and its surroundings.