Appeal 3341941

The appeal is dismissed.

The application was made retrospectively and at the time of my visit the fencing had been erected and was complete.

The main issue is the effect of the fencing upon the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal property is a two-storey dwelling situated at the end of a short terrace of three within a residential neighbourhood estate. The terrace is orientated on a splay across a corner plot at a junction where [address] joins [address]. The front entrance to No 25 is on the side elevation of the terrace which faces [address] at an angle. Land to the front/side of the appeal property, and adjacent to the front garden plots of Nos 1 and [address], which form the other properties in the terrace, has been enclosed on three sides by timber fence panels either 1.8m high with timber lattice above or 2m in height, all supported by concrete posts. At the time of my visit part of the land enclosed by the fence was occupied by a mobile home.

Together with Nos 1 and 1A, the appeal property occupies a prominent corner location. The entrance to [address] is sweeping. The frontages to Nos 1 and 1A are open, bound to the back edge of the pavement only by low brick walls. The fence erected at No 25 is set immediately behind a similar wall enclosing the front/side garden of the appeal property. The opposite corner of the entrance to [address] is open grass verge in front of a similarly splayed corner building but which appears to comprise a two-storey block of flats. This open arrangement is reflective of the front boundaries to most other properties along [address]. Although they vary in type and quality, where they exist, they are mostly low rise and contribute to an open feel to the street scene.

The fencing erected around the forward perimeter of No 25 appears in stark contrast to the otherwise open character of the area. It stands significantly forward of the building line to No 25 and neighbouring properties, appearing intrusive and out of keeping within its setting. It has an enclosing effect tight to the back edge of the footpath that is both jarring and uncharacteristic. Due to its height and siting, I find the visual impact of the fence to be detrimental to the character and appearance of the street scene. By failing to reflect or enhance the local pattern of development, the work undertaken at No 25 to enclose the garden is contrary to Policy PP27 of the Poole Local Plan 2018.

The appellant has directed me to examples of tall boundary fences and walls in the locality and some further afield. I accept that there are various fences and walls in various positions locally but I saw none that compared to the context of No [address] scene in such an intrusive manner.

I understand the appellant’s need for privacy, security and protection from pollution and noise, but the weight I attach to these factors is limited given the open frontages that are typical in the locality. In addition, I have been presented with no substantive evidence to suggest that alternative means to achieve these aims are not feasible.

For the reasons given, I find the fence to be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed.