Appeal 3310263

The Appellant has drawn attention to the apparent conflict between the wording of the reasons for refusal and an additional paragraph within the Council’s decision notice. The addition paragraph implies that the appeal scheme accords with the same policies upon which the appeal was refused. The Appellant is concerned that the decision notice does not reflect a committee

The Officer’s report is a delegated report, indicating that the matter did not go to a planning committee, and it also contains the same contradiction. It appears several typographical errors occurred in two documents, or paragraph from a template document has been carried through, which is highly unfortunate. However, since the reasons for refusal are clear and precise and the questionable paragraph is merely a decision notice informative, I have been able to determine the appeal.

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the ‘replacement of fence with steel and timber fencing (following removal of existing fence and gate)’ at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 22656HH, dated 16 June 2022, subject to the following

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

The appeal site is a semi-detached house which has been greatly extended. It is situated on [address], an attractive suburban residential street. [address] has a verdant and sylvan character by virtue of street trees and the maturely landscaped, yet modestly sized, front gardens of the properties which line the road. [address] also has a semi-enclosed character due to the juxtaposition of on-site front car parking and low level front boundary walls and fences, with the enclosing nature of higher hedges and vegetation above.

The appeal scheme seeks to replace an existing timber and steel fence and gate which was, according to the Council, constructed without planning permission. The Appellant states that they believed the fence was subject to an extant planning permission, however, neither party has established their position either way in the appeal documents. The proposed fence and gate are similar in style, materials and height to the existing, although with framing to the top to create an open section which would achieve a greater sense of openness than the existing fence.

The fence would appear somewhat stark due to the lack of mature vegetation in the appeal site (which has been recently redeveloped to meet the needs of a disabled occupant). However, the open site frontage appears stark in contrast to the rest of the street scene due to the lack of landscaping in any case. In fact, the proposed fence would provide a screen to the hard landscaping the front garden area of the site. The site frontage is not any more prominent than that of the surrounding properties. As such, the proposed fence would be in keeping with the semi-enclosed character of [address] and the prevalent height of boundary treatments, including hedges. The proposed fence would appear lower and more open than the existing fence and would represent an improvement.

For these reasons, the appeal scheme is not out of keeping with the character of the surrounding area and it complies with policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan, adopted 2021, and policies 7.4, 7B, 7C and 7D of the Ealing Development Plan DPD, adopted 2013, as well as the National Planning Policy Framework and the guidance within relevant supplementary planning documents. These policies seek, amongst other things, high quality development which complement an area’s character.

The Appellant has referred to the Human Rights Act 1998 (as amended) and the rights of disabled people in particular. The Appellant has also referred to crime rates for the area. These are relevant material considerations to the appeal. However, since I consider the proposed fence to be in keeping with the character and appearance of the area and therefore to comply with policy, there is no need to weigh the protection of such rights and security against any non-compliance with the relevant policies of the development plan.

The Council has not requested any conditions, presumably because the existing fence is unauthorised. However, as the appeal scheme relates to a fence of a different design, I consider it necessary and reasonable to impose conditions requiring that the development take place in a timely manner, in accordance with the approved plans. .

For the reasons set out above, the appeal scheme would accord with the relevant policies of the development plan and no material considerations indicate that the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. The appeal is accordingly allowed.