Appeal 3321032

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal boundary fence to No. [site address] has been erected. The application for its retention was submitted retrospectively. I have dealt with the appeal on that basis, (s.73A of the Act).

The planning application described the fence project at No. 236 as: “New 2.4m high timber fence + 0.4m [name] to south boundary following partial removal of hedge.”. In fact, the fence is on the northern boundary of No. 236. That is an inconsequential slip. More significantly, submitted drawing 566.001 [name], dated 14/02/2023, for ‘[name] of Hedgerow & Fence facing 238’ shows a fence some 18m long. Drawing 566.000, dated 16/03/2022, shows a new shiplap fence as ‘8500 Extent of new fence’. That appeared to be an indication of only the extent of the new fence alongside the boundary between Nos. 236 and 238.

In dealing with the application, the Council described the development for which planning permission is sought as: The development proposed is for the retention of a 2.5m high timber gate and a 14.37m long, 2.4m to 2.9m high, including 0.4m high trellis, timber fence on, and adjacent the northern common boundary – as set out in the heading above. This description recognises that the new fence is partly on the boundary between the 2 dwellings with the remainder being set into the garden of No. 236 some 1m from the boundary.

The main issue is the effect of the appeal fence on the amenity enjoyed by the occupants of the neighbouring property, No. [address].

At the time of my site inspection, the fence was mostly hidden to views from the rear garden of No. 238 by an evergreen hedge along the garden boundary that had grown to the same height. It appears this hedge has varied from about 2.1m high to its present height of almost 3m.

The occupier of No. 238 said: “... the existing hedge is maintained to a height of 2.4 metres, sufficient height to shield both detached bungalow properties (with no rear dormers) from overlooking and therefore providing adequate privacy.”.

[name] was there, I saw that the appeal fence was hidden to views from the garden of No. 238. But it would be seen if he were to reduce the height of his hedge to 2.4m. As it is, the height of the appeal fence is such that sunlight available to the rear garden of No. 238 is likely to be significantly reduced. At the height of almost 3m hight it also generates an uncomfortable hemmed in feeling.

The General Permitted Development Order at Schedule 2, Part 2, Class A allows for the erection of a fence up to a height of 2m, (limitation A.1(b)). That is an indication such a maximum height is generally appropriate to domestic boundaries that do not front a highway. Where planning permission is sought for a much higher domestic fence, it should only be granted if, amongst other matters, that fence does not materially harm the amenities enjoyed by neighbours. In this instance, the rear garden of each dwelling is small, where a tall boundary is more likely to cause overshadowing and a cramped feeling to those in the garden.

In my view, the current high fence along the rear garden boundary between Nos. 236 and [address] is unacceptably high. Planning permission should not be granted for its retention.

For the reasons outlined above, the appeal is dismissed.