Appeal 3338761

The appeal is dismissed.

On my site visit I observed that a fence has been installed along the boundary of the appeal site with the A443.

The appellants have indicated that, if I am minded to dismiss the appeal on the basis of the originally submitted plans, they would be willing to paint the fence green and plant a native species hedgerow to the front of it. However, a detailed scheme showing how this landscaping would be secured has not been submitted and also the Council has not commented on this approach. Therefore, it would be inappropriate for me to formally consider these proposed revisions to the scheme.

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

Taken together, Policies SWDP21 and SWDP25 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan (2016) (SWDP) and Policies AYB5 and ABY9 of the Abberley Neighbourhood Development Plan 2020-2030 (2021) (ANDP) require sensitive boundary treatments which maintain or enhance local distinctiveness.

The South Worcestershire Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2018) (SPD) recommends against expanses of close-board fencing bordering on the public realm. It advises in respect of boundary treatments, ‘Materials should always complement the character of the property and the neighbourhood’ (Paragraph 8.3.32).

The appeal site is located in the rural village of Abberley. The appeal relates to a close board wooden fence on the boundary of the appellants’ home with the A443, the main road through the village. Other properties in the village include hedges, brick walls, low level picket fences or wooden stock fencing along their boundaries with this highway. These all sit comfortably within the rural setting. By contrast, due to its design and length, the close board fence appears stark and overly prominent in the street scene. As such the appeal scheme is at odds with, and unacceptably harmful to, the rural character and appearance of the area.

In conclusion, the fence unacceptably harms the rural character and appearance of this main route through the village. It therefore conflicts with Policies SWDP21 and SWDP25 of the SWDP, Policies AYB5 and ABY9 of the ANDP, the SPD and the National Planning Policy Framework.

In reaching my decision, I have considered all matters raised by the appellants in support of the appeal scheme. I recognise that a fence is required for security and privacy. However, I consider that this could be addressed in a more sympathetic manner.

The original boundary hedge was removed to accommodate visibility splays and a new footway as part of the adjacent housing development. I acknowledge that an original fence was removed as it was revealed to be in a poor condition following the removal of the hedge. I also note that the appellants had informal discussions regarding the provision of a fence with representatives of the Highways Department. However, I attribute limited weight to these matters. They would not outweigh, or justify, the harm I have identified.

For the reasons given above, and having regard to all matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.