Appeal 3327875

The appeal is dismissed.

In the period since the appeal was submitted the Government has published a revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework. None of the changes are relevant to this appeal but I have used the paragraph referencing from the new Framework in my decision below.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surroundings on [address].

The appeal property sits on the north side of [address] and is a modern detached property constructed in buff brick and tile. It is a corner plot with frontage to [address] and [address]. The boundaries to [address] and [address] are formed by evergreen hedging and on the [address] frontage there is a dwarf red brick wall comprising 5-6 courses and coping stones.

Frontage treatment on [address] is a mixture of low brick walling, hedging, shrubs and trees which establishes a green character to the street scene. The houses to the north of the appeal site for some distance all have a similar pattern of frontage boundary treatment to the appeal site comprising low brick boundary walls and brick piers facing [address].

I have been referred to other properties in the area with timber fencing which the appellant considers justifies the appeal proposal. However, from my observations on site, the fence at No [address] is not comparable as it is in a less prominent position away from the [address] frontage and a different construction to that proposed on the appeal site. I acknowledge that there is another example of a timber fence to the north on the west side of [address] but this close boarded fence only serves to demonstrate the adverse impact of this sort of structure on the character of Lode road. It is not a reason to justify similar fences elsewhere. I will therefore determine the appeal proposal on its own merits.

The removal of the current boundary treatment on the [address] frontage and its replacement with 2 metre high timber fencing would result in the loss of part of the established green character of [address] in an extremely prominent position. In views both ways along [address] the timber fence, regardless of any potential colour treatment, would appear as a hard, dominant and intrusive feature in the streetscape in a similar way to the frontage fencing further north on the west side of [address].

It has been put to me that the change is necessitated by the condition of the brick wall and the hedging which is now leaning. From my observations on site whilst there is some erosion to the face of the brickwork it did not appear to affect the structural integrity of the dwarf wall. Moreover, whilst I accept the hedge is leaning closest to the southern corner of the plot I am not persuaded that this could not be resolved and no evidence has been presented to suggest otherwise.

The Framework at paragraph 131 sets the creation of high quality buildings and places as fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve. At paragraph 135 planning decisions should ensure, amongst other things, that development would add to the overall quality of the area, be visually attractive, and be sympathetic to local character and in these respects the proposal fails. Policy ENV1 of the East Cambridgeshire Local Plan (ECLP) reflects the Framework in requiring development to have a complementary relationship with existing development in terms of a number of design factors including edge treatments. Policy ENV2 goes on to require all development to be designed to a high quality enhancing and complementing local distinctiveness and public amenity by relating well to existing features and that design which fails to have regard to local context should be refused. For the above reasons i.e. the frontage positioning, height, prominence, design and proposed materials the fence would have an unacceptable impact on the established character and appearance of [address].

I understand the appellant’s wish to have a secure boundary and privacy to the garden area. However, the existing boundary treatment already achieves this and as stated paragraph 135c in section 12 of the Framework requires that development should be sympathetic to local character including the landscape setting.

It has been put to me that there have been no neighbour objections to the proposal but as the proposal principally affects the street scene on [address] rather than neighbouring properties this is not unusual. The absence of neighbour objection does not automatically make the proposal acceptable in terms of the impact on the public realm.

In reaching my decision I have had regard to the matters before me but for the reasons above the appeal should be dismissed.