Appeal 3310906

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of the proposal has been altered from the application form to the decision notice. That on the application form adequately describes the proposal and I have considered the appeal on this basis.

Fencing of differing height is proposed as part of the scheme. Forward of the south-west facing elevation of the dwelling adjacent to [address] the height of the fence would be 1m. Only a small portion of this fence had been constructed at the time of my visit.

The plans indicate a 1.8m timber panel fence with concrete posts and gravel boards beyond the south east facing elevation of the property adjacent to [address].

The 1.8m timber panel fence was in place at the time of my site visit. What has been constructed broadly accords with the plans submitted, but for the avoidance of doubt, my determination has been made on the basis of the plans.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area with regard to the 1.8m timber panel fence.

Properties in the area often have no or low boundary treatment to their front / most publicly visible front elevations. This could be observed on the properties immediately opposite the appeal site on [address], those further to the north west along [address], and opposite around the flats on [address].

This contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area through the openness that this arrangement offers allowing views of pleasant often green spaces bounding nearby properties.

The 1.8m timber panel fence is located right on the boundary and has a stark and prominent appearance. As a result of its height and reasonably solid construction, it shuts the garden area beyond the southeast facing elevation off from public views. This runs contrary to the general characteristics of the area, thereby significantly harming its character and appearance.

The proposal therefore fails to accord with Policy P10 of the [name] (2019). Amongst other things, this policy requires high quality design and states that development should respect and enhance existing streets and spaces.

There would also be conflict with SPD1 guidance at p.38 where it is advised amongst other things that proposals which seek to erect large fences to the fronts of properties and adjacent to public areas will not normally be acceptable.

I accept that there are some instances of taller boundary treatment on [address], however lower boundary walls/fences and railings are a more common arrangement. I therefore afford this matter limited weight.

I accept that there have been some benefits in erecting the fencing for the appellant in terms of safety and security. However, it does appear to be the case that separately there is a garden area beyond the northeast elevation that is fenced off with robust boundary treatment. I therefore afford these benefits limited weight.

It could be the case that a lower fence could be erected under permitted development rights as acknowledged by the Council. However, any such fencing would likely be much lower and as a result less harmful to the character and appearance of the area than that erected. I therefore afford this matter limited weight.

There is nothing to indicate that the decision should me made otherwise than in accordance with the development plan and I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.