Appeal 3310256

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for 1.[address] board fencing across the front of the property at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/HOU/2022/04710, dated 29 July 2022 and the plans submitted with it.

I have made a minor change to the description of development to ensure that it only describes the development for which planning permission is sought.

I observed on my site visit that the development appears to have been completed in accordance with the approved plans. I have therefore determined the appeal on the basis that retrospective permission is sought for the development which has already been implemented.

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

The appeal site is located in a residential area that is predominantly characterised by large, detached properties that are set back from the road. The area contains a significant number of matures trees and other vegetation that gives it a verdant appearance. Within the immediate vicinity, there are a variety of different roadside boundary treatments, including hedgerows, fences and walls.

The Special Character Areas Supplementary Planning Guidance No. 27, October 2005 (the SPG), identifies that the appeal site is located within a Special Character Area known as the [address] Area. The development criteria within the SPG include a requirement that existing boundary hedging should be maintained, and that any new boundary treatments should ensure that hedging predominates.

The development that is the subject of this appeal is a wooden fence and so it fails to conform with the precise detail set out in the SPG. Nevertheless, the overarching purpose of that aspect of the SPG guidance is to protect the existing verdant character of the area. In particular, the SPG notes that the mature trees in this location provide a ‘distinctive sylvan character’.

In this instance, the fence is relatively large and it is in a prominent location on a long straight road. It is therefore highly visible. However, there are several mature trees immediately next to the fence that are of a considerable size, both in terms of their height and spread. Their attractive appearance adds greatly to the character of the area. When viewing the fence, either from close range or at a distance, it is very much seen within the context of the trees around it. In effect the trees, with their low hanging branches, form part of the boundary treatment, and therefore visually, they provide the appearance of a well vegetated boundary. Consequently, in this instance, the fence does not dominate the street scene or appear visually harsh, and the verdant character of the immediate area is maintained. Some of the trees next to the fence are protected by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). This provides greater certainty that they will not be removed in future.

There are numerous examples of boundary fences near to the appeal site, some of which are of a similar height and length to the development before me. The fence therefore does not appear out of keeping within the street scene, or incongruous with its surroundings. Over time, as the wooden fence naturally weathers, its appearance will soften further. The appellant has set out that they may wish to paint the fence in future. In my view, doing so would not diminish local character or distinctiveness.

As a result, I conclude that the development does not harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It is therefore in conformity with Policy HE2 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan, Part 1 - [name], adopted April 2014, which seeks to ensure that development is of a high-quality design that responds to local distinctiveness. The development also conforms with the general thrust of the guidance within the SPG by maintaining the existing verdant character of the area. Finally, there is no conflict with paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework which, among other things, requires new development to be sympathetic to local character.

The appeal site is located in an area that is subject to a group TPO. As noted above, there are several protected trees immediately next to the fence. The Council is satisfied that the development has not caused harm to the trees, and I have no reason to disagree with that position.

Given that the development has already been completed in accordance with the submitted plans, conditions to identify the relevant timescales and plans are not necessary.

The proposed development is in accordance with the development plan when considered as a whole. Having had regard to all matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.