Appeal 3323375

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a fence and gates to the front boundary at [site address] , Trafford [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 110153/HHA/23, dated 28 January 2023, and drawing nos. 08/23/LP, 08/23/BP and 08/23/1.

The development the subject of this appeal is already in place. However, in the interests of clarity, and as it is not an act of development, in my formal decision I have amended the description of the development to omit references to its retrospective nature.

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

This part of [address] is characterised by substantial detached houses which are set back from this wide and busy road behind front gardens and parking forecourts. Front boundary treatments typically comprise low stone or brick walls, and occasional railings, along with landscaping including some tall hedgerows.

In that context, the gates and the fence at No 372 are atypical of the area. However, their planks have been made to resemble timber, and their dark grey finish references the colour of the adjacent pavement and parts of the host property including its roof, gable and balcony. This, together with the retained locally distinctive stone wall in front of the fence, has helped to assimilate the development into the streetscene, and avoided the creation of a harsh feature at the back of the pavement, or one that gives the impression of a serious security concern.

Whilst the fence and gates are taller than nearby front boundary structures, they do still allow the house to be seen from the road. Moreover, given the presence of some tall landscaping, unrestricted views of the whole front face of the houses or their gardens is not a distinctive characteristic of the area.

The Trafford Supplementary Planning Document No 4: A Guide for [address] Extensions and Alterations 2012 (‘SPD’) sets out, amongst other things, that walls and fences will be considered in terms of their impact on the visual character of the area, and that where there is a distinctive type of residential frontage it is desirable that it be reinforced.

For the above reasons, whilst this scheme is taller than other nearby boundary structures, it has not harmed the visual character of the area. Notwithstanding the slight conflict with the SPD, the scheme does not therefore conflict with Policy L7 of the Trafford Local Plan Core Strategy 2012 which requires development to be appropriate to its context, and to enhance the streetscene having regard to matters including boundary treatment.

Neither would it conflict with the thrust of the National Planning Policy Framework, including its requirement for good design which is sympathetic to local character.

Given that the development is already in place, the Council’s suggested condition requiring that it be carried out in accordance with the approved plans is not appropriate.

In conclusion, the scheme has not harmed the character and appearance of the area, and it does not conflict with the development plan. Consequently, having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is allowed.