Appeal 3348507

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the locality.

The appeal property is a detached bungalow on a large corner plot at the entrance to [address]. This is a small housing estate of a generally ‘open-plan’ nature. The locality is one of established residential character and the buildings, spaces and landscape come together to create an area of pleasing appearance. The Appellant seeks to enclose the large part of the ‘side’ garden which fronts [address] and take the approx 2-metre-high fence around part of the [address] frontage with a return back to the front corner of the dwelling.

Regrettably the fencing would look alien and ill-at-ease on both road frontages. This prominent property was clearly part of the overall open plan estate concept, to which the vast majority of homes have adhered, and the fence would look a dominant interruption to that scene and to the locality’s wider character. Despite some variation in boundaries to [address], there is simply nothing around which would be directly comparable here, and certainly not in [address], and the scheme would be jarring on the eye and harmful to the visual merits of the wider area. The stark development would lack a suitable degree of subtleness and consideration of landscape.

Policy D DM1 of the Arun Local Plan and Policy H1 of the Ford Neighbourhood Development Plan 2019 are relevant. Amongst other matters, these seek to ensure that development is of high-quality design with suitable scale and siting to be sympathetic to the character of a site and its surroundings and to deliver landscape with an appearance which reflects the local area. I conclude that the proposal would run contrary to these policies. It would also conflict with the pertinent aesthetic objectives of the [name], albeit this document could not be expected to cover every eventuality.

I was sorry to hear of the Appellant’s difficulties at pre-application stage and some possible mis-understandings. I understand the Appellant’s wish and reasoning to fence-in the large side garden area and part of the front at this property. I can see that there is evidence of people on foot, bikes and cars adversely using the space. I also note that a number of statutory bodies have raised no objection to the scheme. However, I have carefully considered all the points raised by the Appellant and taken individually or together these matters do not outweigh the concerns which I have in relation to the main issue identified above. I do hope that a mutually agreed outcome can be found; I find it hard to believe that high level close boarded fencing is the only solution to the problems which the Appellant clearly encounters.

The National Planning Policy Framework has been considered and the development plan policies which I cite mirror relevant objectives within that document.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal proposal would have unacceptable adverse effects on the character and appearance of the locality. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.