Appeal 6000663

The appeal is dismissed.

The original application was for an acoustic gate and fencing 4 m high. Prior to determination the appellant proposed to reduce the height to 3 m but the Council stated that it would still be refused. Whilst the application was never formally amended the appellant has made clear that they wish the appeal to proceed on the basis of a 3 m high gate and fencing. I am satisfied that no party would be prejudiced by proceeding on that basis and so I have done so.

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

The proposal, as amended, is for the erection of a [address] boarded timber acoustic entrance gate and fence along the B4352 roadside boundary of [site address] , a large detached house situated about 3 miles northeast of [site address] . The property is sited fairly close to the road in one corner of its large plot alongside [name], a second dwelling, and two farmyard type buildings, but otherwise is located in the open countryside.

The property changed hands in May 2024. As photos submitted with the appeal show, at that time the roadside boundary consisted of standard but dilapidated close boarded fencing panels from the northern entrance gate near the house as far as a rendered stable building. This section of fencing has since been replaced with new standard close boarded panels which are just under 2 m high.

The current proposal is to replace this section of fencing with close boarded timber acoustic fencing of 3 m height, also for this height fencing to replace the hedging which runs from the stable building as far as the southern entrance drive and then for some distance along the drive itself away from the road1. A 3 m high acoustic gate would also be erected across the northern entrance. The Council report states that the fence and gate would be about 90 m long in all, most of this being along the road frontage.

However, the front boundary fence and hedging is only set back from the road by a grass verge about 2 m wide. Along the B4352 either side of the appeal site and indeed further afield roadside boundaries are normally hedgerows and the fencing already in place forms a stark and intrusive feature on the roadside in its farmland setting. However, the proposal would not be an improvement. Its replacement by taller 3 m high fencing, albeit of higher quality panels, would be even more stark and intrusive, oddly rising about 1 m taller than the stable building on either side and replacing the more normal hedge boundary to the south of the stable building and for some distance along the drive. The resulting visual impact would not be satisfactorily mitigated by planting hedging on the highway verge in front or by planting ivy or other climbing plants to soften its appearance. A [address] boarded gate replacing the existing traditional five bar gate across the northern entrance would also be unduly visually intrusive.

The appellant argues that acoustic fencing is necessary to reduce the traffic noise from the B4352, for privacy as drivers of lorries and agricultural vehicles can see over the fence into the house and garden, and for security. However, no noise assessment is submitted, the road is lightly trafficked with high sided vehicles only a proportion of those passing and there is no evidence that particular security needs require a 3 m high fence. There is no comparable fencing along the road frontage of the [name] or other residential properties a similar distance back from the B4352 road to the northeast.

For these reasons the proposed fence and gates would significantly harm the character and appearance of the area in conflict with Policy LD1 of the Herefordshire Local Plan Core Strategy 2015 and Policy CNP3 of the Clifford Neighbourhood Plan 2022. These require that the design, scale and nature of development has been positively influenced by the character of the landscape, that it conserves and enhances scenic beauty through the protection of the area’s character, and that the Parish’s landscape should be conserved, enhanced and maintained including appropriate measures to restore its inherent characteristics and local distinctiveness, retaining valued landscape features such as hedgerows and adding to these assets where opportunities are available. The comments of the Parish Council in support of the proposal conflict with Policy CNP3.

The proposal would provide noise reduction, privacy and security for the appellant but this private benefit is outweighed by the significant harm that would be caused to the character and appearance of the area and the associated conflict with the development plan. The appeal should therefore be dismissed.