Appeal 3326790

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect that the proposed development would have on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The appeal site includes the roughly L-plan bungalow and its gardens, which are situated on the roughly south corner where Stroud Green Drive meets [address]. The back garden in the south part of the site is similar in size to the back gardens of most nearby terraced dwellings in Stroud Green Drive and [address], and it is separated from the side garden by a tall fence. A low to mid height fence by the pavement in Stroud Green Drive encloses part of the front garden excluding the drive, and it includes a short return near the pavement in [address] in the north corner of the site. The far end of the side garden, which is as deep as the back garden, is retained by a few courses of brickwork. In keeping with most of the nearby deeper mainly open front gardens to the dwellings in The Hollies to roughly south west, the side garden at the site is largely open to [address].

The street scene in the nearby part of [address] is mainly characterised by the openness and greenery on both sides of the road. There are other parts that include tall boundary treatments, but they mostly occur where the back gardens of dwellings reached from other streets end or run parallel to [address], and most are set well back from the road. Most front and side spaces in Stroud Green Drive, and other nearby streets including [address] and [address] are open plan, so although there are a few low fences between plots, most front and side gardens are open. So, whilst the existing fence in the front garden at the site is at odds with its surroundings, the existing openness in the front and side gardens on this prominent corner contributes positively to the local spacious character, and to the sense of place. 942

The proposed fence would be sited by the pavements in Stroud Green Drive and [address], and it would enclose all of the side garden and almost all of the front garden but not the drive. Due to its height, considerable length, siting, and stark form, the proposal would be an unacceptably dominant and incongruous feature that would harmfully erode the local spacious character.

As the existing dwelling is set well back from both roads, as bungalows with street facing bedroom windows are not unusual, and as the side of the existing back garden facing [address] is enclosed by tall fencing, little weight can be attached to the appellant’s concerns about privacy and security. Other boundary treatments referred to by the appellant include the backs of garages reached from [address], which are set well back from [address] by mostly wide grass verges and the pavement, and the fences at ‘[address]’ (which includes the dwelling at [address]) and [address], which are in a different part of the road where the character differs, so their circumstances differ from those of the proposal before me. As the fence by the garage at [address] is much shorter than the proposal and lower than its garage wall, and as the wall with trellis above encloses the side of its back garden, which is higher than and set away from [address], they provide little support for this damaging proposal.

Suggested changes to the proposal include keeping the fence by Stroud Green Drive at its present height, changing the fences by both roads to a 1.5 m high fence with a trellis on top, and setting the fences back to leave a green or flower planted buffer. However, such measures, individually or cumulatively, would not outweigh the harm that the proposal would cause to the street scenes in Stroud Green Drive and [address], and to the sense of place. As fairly little of the fence permitted in about 2009 under different development plan policy appears to exist, it attracts minimal weight.

Therefore, I consider that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It would be contrary to Policy D DM1 of the Arun Local Plan 2011-2031 which seeks high quality design and respect for context, guidance in the Arun District Design Guide, and the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) which seeks to achieve well-designed places and sympathy for local character.

I have found that the proposed development would be contrary to the Development Plan when taken as a whole. The other considerations in this case, including the Framework, do not outweigh that conflict.

For the reasons given, the appeal should be dismissed.