Appeal 3329283

The appeal is dismissed.

If have taken the description of development from the Decision Notice of the Council. I do not have record of any agreement to change the description but it is far more concise than the original, but I have removed the reference to a retrospective application, as this does not constitute development.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the locality.

The appeal site is a two storey semi detached property located on the corner of [address] and [address], fronting [address] and at right angles to [address], sited within a predominately residential area. There is a reasonably sized side amenity area now formally enclosed by the fencing. The works have already been completed. The appeal property is set back from the road, with pavement passing the property. A dropped kerb is located to the front of the new gates.

The proposals subject to the appeal are wooden boundary fencing and gates, with concrete posts, approximately 1.8m in height, running from the boundary with [address] along to the front of the host dwelling, where they become lower level fencing and a pedestrian gate.

The introduction of the substantial new boundary fence has altered the character of the neighbourhood, which is generally low boundary walls or fencing, with some vegetation boundaries. The addition of the gates and fencing forms an inconsistent and unsympathetic boundary with their height and form being out of keeping with the character of the area.

I understand that some hedging previously ran along the side boundary of the host property. The significant length of fence along the side boundary of the host property, together with its height and design, results in a stark, dominant feature in a prominent location. This is at odds with the prevailing character of the area.

It has been brought to my attention that there are other fences within the area and I observed a number during my site visit. I have limited information before me relating to the history of these other fences, whether they are authorised, and what boundary treatments, if any, they replaced. Notwithstanding this, the fences are not directly comparable, due to their location, design and prominence and I must assess the proposal on its own merits.

I find that the appeal proposals are in conflict with policies CP3 and CP4 of the Derby City Local Plan Part 1 – [name] (2017) and Saved Policy GD5 of the City of Derby Local Plan Review (2006), which amongst other matters, expect development to respond to their context in terms of boundary treatments and the local area and not create unacceptable harm to the amenity of nearby areas.

The proposal does not accord with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations that indicate that I should take a different decision other than in accordance with this.

For the reasons outlined above, I conclude the appeal should be dismissed.