Appeal 3367170

The fence to the west and south of the appeal property has already been replaced. The appeal has been determined on this basis.

The Council raises no objections to the side fence. There are no reasons to disagree. Accordingly, this decision focuses on the front fence and gate which constitute the matter in dispute.

Since the Council’s decision, the [name] and West Norfolk Local Plan 2021 2040 (LP) has been adopted. It replaces the policies in the [name] and the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Plan which were also referred to in the decision notice.

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the front fence and gate on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The appeal site is located within [site address] which is designated a smaller village and hamlet in the Development Plan. The appeal property (No 6) stands to the east of the main village on a rural road at the end of a row of cottages in open countryside. No 6 is set back from the road behind its front garden and a grass verge which is at a higher level than the road. Its extensive side garden is bounded by fields and there is open countryside on the opposite side of the road.

The erected front fence and gate are around 1.7m high. The appellant indicates that the fence it replaced was a similar height. The plans and submitted photograph show a vertical close boarded fence along the frontage, although it is unclear from the photograph whether this extended across the front of the cottage. Nonetheless, it has a materially different appearance to the former fencing.

The frontages and boundary treatments of the neighbouring cottages are varied, being either open or enclosed by low fences and gates of varied heights and/or hedges. The appeal fence and gate are significantly taller than other boundary structures in the area and their contemporary appearance contrasts starkly with the low-key, rural surroundings. They have a visually dominating and distinctly suburban character. Having regard to its height, design and its extent along both the frontage of the house and the side garden, the front boundary treatment appears discordant and out of keeping with its sensitive rural surroundings.

The appellant sought to improve security and privacy for the property. However, there are other means by which these objectives could be achieved. Whilst there are a mix of frontage treatments in the vicinity as noted above, none are similar to the appeal proposal which has been determined on its own merits. In reaching my decision I have had regard to, and concur with, the comments of the [site address] Parish Council and the advice of the Council.

For the foregoing reasons, I conclude that the proposal conflicts with the design objectives of Policies LP18 and LP21 of the [name] and West Norfolk Local Plan which can be summarised as requiring development to respond sensitively and sympathetically to the local setting. There is further conflict with the similar design requirements set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.

Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed.