Appeal 3369294

The appeal is dismissed.

The submitted drawings include extensions to the house. However, I have dealt with the appeal on the basis of the garden fence only, as depicted on the drawings, and as set out in the description on the application form and in the Council’s decision. That fence is already in place.

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

This part of [address], along with some nearby streets, is tree-lined and contains sections of grass verge. The properties are set back from the highway on fairly large plots, which typically either have no boundary treatment to the front, or are modestly contained by low walls or vegetation. These attributes contribute to the area’s spacious, open and well-landscaped character.

That said, I observed a few examples of tall side boundary features on corner plots. That includes a close boarded timber fence next to the pavement at [address], which is opposite this site on the other side of [address]. There are also side boundary walls at 102 and [address], although they are set back behind trees and verges from [address].

As depicted on the drawings, I understand that the fence on the appeal site replaced an approximately 2 metre high wall. However, it is clear from interested parties’ representations, including photographic evidence submitted by email dated 16 April 2025, that the pre-existing wall was set back from [address] behind a grass verge, which significantly softened its impact on the streetscene, such that it reflected the area’s prevailing character.

In contrast, the replacement fence abuts the pavement, and extends further towards [address]. Moreover, whilst it does not project beyond the front face of the house, given its length, height, siting and very dark coloured panels, it is an obtrusive and stark feature on this prominent corner plot. It has therefore had a significantly harmful impact on the streetscene, and it does not reflect the area’s prevailing open and landscaped character.

The appellant says that the fence was erected due to the refurbishment and re-orientation of the host property. However, I am not persuaded that this scheme is the only way in which a reasonable degree of privacy within the garden could be secured. Whilst he points out that a 1 metre high fence could be erected adjacent to the highway under permitted development rights1, as that would create less of a sense of enclosure in the streetscene, it would be less harmful compared to this development.

For these reasons, the fence has significantly harmed the character and appearance of the area. As Policy P10 of the Solihull Local Plan (2013) (‘SLP’) addresses the natural environment and biodiversity, and as the fence replaced a pre-existing wall, it is of limited relevance on this issue. However, the scheme conflicts with those parts of SLP Policy P15, and Policy D1 of the Knowle, Dorridge and Bentley Heath Neighbourhood Plan 2018-2033 (2019), which require good design that conserves and enhances local character, distinctiveness and streetscape quality, taking account of matters such as the arrangement of front gardens, walls, railings, hedges and other means of enclosure.

It also conflicts with the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 requirement for good design which responds to local character; and with the stance in the [address] Extension Guidelines Supplementary Planning Document (2010) that boundary walls and fences adjacent to the road should harmonise with the character and local distinctiveness of the streetscene, and that particular care is needed when proposing side garden walls/fences on corner plots in order to avoid over prominence.

Having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is therefore dismissed.