Appeal 3310215

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by [name] against the decision of Cambridge City Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

The main issues in this appeal are the effects of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal property is a modern semi-detached dwelling located in a residential area. Within the area are a mix of front boundary treatments. Low timber fences and hedges provide a sense of openness and allow views of dwelling frontages and gardens which contribute visual interest, while sections of taller hedges and occasional trees add greenery to the street scene.

The proposed fence would be constructed from high-quality ‘hit and miss’ panels which would allow glimpsed views between slats. However, the overall effect of the fence would be to obscure views of the front of the dwelling from the street and reduce the generally open character of the area.

An existing low timber fence spans the front boundaries of the appeal property and adjoining dwelling. The proposed fence would be twice the height of, and thus appear significantly taller than the adjoining dwelling’s front fence. Due to its height, the proposed fence would appear visually dominant in the street scene.

Opposite the appeal site is a section of tall timber fence along the side boundary of [address]. Likewise, the side and rear garden of the appeal property is surrounded by a tall timber fence. Therefore, whilst some tall fences are visible within the street scene, these serve to enclose rear gardens where there is a greater expectation of privacy and are not present at front boundaries. Therefore, due to its height and appearance, the proposed fence would appear out of keeping with the area’s front boundary treatments which contribute to the spacious, suburban character of the area.

For these reasons, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. The proposal would conflict with Policies 55 and 56 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2018 which together require that development proposals are informed by local characteristics, including through its form and materials, responds positively to its context, and improves public realm.

A previous application1 which included erection of a 1.8m perimeter fence was refused by the Council solely on grounds of harm to highway safety. The delegated report for that application concluded the proposal as a whole would not cause a detrimental impact upon the character and appearance of the area. Following the Council’s refusal, the appellant sought professional advice to revise the scheme and overcome the issues of conflict with highway safety. The Council’s findings in respect of the previous scheme do not outweigh my conclusion that the appeal proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area and would thus conflict with the development plan. However, I have considered matters of consistency in the Council’s decision-making in the separate costs decision.

The appellant suggests the proposal would provide greater privacy, particularly into the kitchen in the front of the dwelling. The appeal property is set back from the pedestrian footway by a front garden and driveway. The siting of the appeal property is therefore typical for a residential area and the evidence before me does not suggest the occupants of the appeal property experience an inadequate standard of privacy.

The appellant indicates they have been a victim of crime through the theft of electric bikes from the shed in the front garden. It is not clear what additional security the fence would provide, nor why improved security could not be achieved by alternative measures without harm to the character and appearance of the area, and thus security concerns do not outweigh the harm I have identified above.

For the reasons given above, having assessed the case against the development plan taken as a whole and having had regard to all other relevant material considerations, I conclude the appeal should be dismissed.