Appeal 3369199

The appeal is dismissed.

The application forms confirm that the development had been completed prior to the application being made. I shall therefore treat the application as seeking permission for the development as originally undertaken, namely the erection of a timber fence.

The approved plans relating to a planning permission for a single storey extension to the existing building at the appeal site, under the Council’s Ref: 23/01844/FULL, included a 1.[address] boarded fence to the western boundary and a section of the northern boundary. The appeal before me relates to the remaining fence which has been erected along the northern boundary and to the eastern boundary.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the development on the street scene.

The appeal property is a semi-detached bungalow within a residential cul de sac of predominantly detached and semi-detached bungalows, a number of which have been extended and altered. The two properties fronting [name] with side returns along the entrance to [address] have boundary fences but within the cul de sac, the frontages are predominantly open with a mix of hardstandings and planted front gardens providing a verdant and spacious character and appearance to the street scene.

Whereas the majority of the properties within the cul de sac front onto the road, the appeal property is a corner plot and has a side return to [address]. The fence, as erected, encloses the side garden providing the amenity space for the property. I have taken this into account and the desire to provide privacy and security for the residents of the appeal property. However, the combined effect of the length and height of the solid, close boarded fence, as erected, along the boundary line of the site, results in an overly harsh and dominant incursion in the more open and spacious street scene. It is visually incongruous with the predominant pattern of development within the cul de sac and harms the street scene.

I therefore conclude that the fence as erected does harm the street scene. This conflicts with Policy EN1 of the [site address] Borough Local Plan 2006, Policies 4 and 5 of the [site address] Borough Core Strategy 2010 and the National Planning Policy Framework, and in particular Section 12, all of which amongst other matters seek a high quality of design which respects the local context.

I have also been referred to Policy EN1 of the [site address] Borough Submission Local Plan 2021, although I do not have detailed information regarding the stage that this plan has reached towards adoption and the extent to which there may be outstanding objections. However, in so far as it continues the policy objectives and approach of the 2006 Plan and the [name], I have taken it into account and am satisfied that there would be no conflict with it.

[name] have limited information before me. I have taken into account that the fence replaces a previous mature evergreen hedge along the boundary and that there were issues with the hedge leading to its removal, However, these matters do not outweigh the harm I have concluded from the fence as erected and do not persuade me to a different view.

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