Appeal 3333516

The appeal is allowed and the planning permission Ref 06/23/0431/HH for retention of existing trellis erected on top of 2m high fence (total height 2.7m) along southern boundary of rear garden at [site address] granted on 28 September 2023 by [site address] Borough Council is varied by deleting condition 1, subject to the following

No further or additional trellis(s) or other screens shall be added above the existing boundary fence without first gaining the express written permission of the Local Planning Authority.

The main issue in this case is whether it is necessary to limit the period of the permission to 3 years in the interests of the residential amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties.

The appeal site is a detached bungalow located at the start of a cul-de-sac, Mawkin Green, with a front and rear garden: Mawkin Green is accessed via [address]. The neighbouring dwellings to the west and east are both detached bungalows. The dwellings to the south rear boundary of the site consists of two semi-detached and two detached houses that front onto [address]. The existing trellis is along the southern boundary of the appellant’s rear garden which is shared with dwellings Nos.1 and [address] and part of the garden of No.5.

The addition of the trellis creates a 2.7m high fence which the appellant states is 2.4m above ground level on the other side because of higher ground level in those gardens. The normal height of fencing on the estate is 1.8 to 2m timber board fencing. It is unusual to see fences that reach above this height on the estate but it's not unusual to see structures at this height or above. For example, the garages with pitched roofs are found in almost all the rear gardens of houses in [address].

The appellant explains that the trellis was erected to avoid being overlooked from a children’s slide that was erected immediately on the other side of her fence. The trellis does not prevent overlooking entirely, but does provide an improved sense of privacy. The trellis is soft in appearance, and is reasonably transparent. This planning permission was granted by the council on the basis that it is not sufficiently harmful to the residential amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties, and I consider that it does not substantially affect the amenities of those residents.

The appellant draws attention to paragraph 551 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which makes clear that planning conditions should be kept to a minimum and only used where they satisfy the following tests: 1 Necessary, 2 Relevant to planning, 3 Relevant to the development permitted, 4 Enforceable, 5 Precise, and 6 Reasonable in all other respects. I consider that the condition can be regarded as meeting tests 2, 3, 4, and 5, without the need for further explanation.

Thus the essential consideration is whether the condition is necessary and reasonable. The reason for the imposition of the condition is set out in full in the banner heading at the top of this decision: it is to protect the residential amenities of neighbours. Since it has been found that there is no unreasonable effect on these amenities and therefore permission was granted, it follows that the condition is unnecessary, and test 1 is not met. There is no reason to suggest that the effect of the trellis will increase after 3 years. It is not necessary to go further to consider test 6. 1 The paragraph is now numbered 56 in the December 2023 version of the NPPF.

I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed, with the removal of condition No.1. However, I consider that the second condition of the permission should be re-imposed, that no further trellis etc, shall be added to the fence, in order to protect the amenity of adjoining occupiers.