Appeal 6000806

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for retention of fencing development at [site address] [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2025/0001527/HHA, and the plans submitted with it.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The appeal follows an application which sought planning permission retrospectively for development that has already been carried out according to the submitted plans. I have therefore determined my recommendation based on the plans and what I observed on site.

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

The appeal site is comprised of an end-terraced property which has a forward projecting garage and single car parking space to the frontage. It is situated on a corner plot and the garden wraps around from the front to the rear of the property. On my site visit, I observed that the fence concerned is in situ and wraps around the three sides of the appeal site.

The appeal site is located within a residential and verdant area and indeed to the rear of the property there is a large community green space which includes mature trees. Many of the properties in the area are of the same style and age as the appeal property and have enclosed rear gardens. Corner plots such as the appeal site have a variety of boundary treatments such as dense hedging, enclosing fences and also an absence of boundary treatments in which the garden is open to the highway. Similarly, as is the case for the appeal site, there are several examples of the boundary enclosing the side verge and abutting the highway, rather than a verdant verge. [address], the adjoining main road, hosts a primary school and a bus route and was observed to be well-trafficked by both vehicular and pedestrian movement at the time of my visit.

The new fence replaces a lower fence and additionally includes a further divide between the front and rear elements of the garden. The LPA have stated that the wooden shiplap style which has been chosen is inappropriate around front and side elevations but have not provided any justification for this statement. On the contrary, the use of a single continuous material provides harmony to the boundary and aligns it with other examples of the use of wooden shiplap, such as that at no.[address], which is located opposite the appeal site. The cohesive design choice therefore assimilates with the appearance of the area.

The Coventry City Council Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2023) (SPD) guidance states that boundary treatments more than 1.2m in height adjacent to the highway will be discouraged, it further confirms that all boundary treatments visible from public land should seek to positively contribute to the character of the street scene and locality. Therefore, whilst the new fence is taller than the preceding, it is of a comparable height to other boundary treatments within the area, creating an overall sense of cohesion. The overwhelming openness of the area and the pleasant abundance of green space ensures that the new fence does not create any unacceptable sense of enclosure on the street scene. Whilst the appearance of the side of the appeal site has changed, this change does not necessarily equal harm, and in this instance the change is in keeping with other examples of boundary treatment within the vicinity.

Overall, the new fence does not have a significant adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area. It therefore complies with Policies DE1 of the Coventry City Council Local Plan (2017) which requires development proposals to respect and enhance the surrounding residential environment and clearly define the boundaries between public and private spaces. It further is in line with the advice given in the SPD regarding boundary treatments and their contribution to street character and quality.

A third-party representation has been made regarding highway and pedestrian safety, permitted development, a previous application for a similar scheme being refused and a proposed compromise. It has been raised that the height of the fence would not be permitted under the General Permitted Development Order (2015) where the fence would be adjacent to a vehicular highway. However, a fence of this height can be considered under a planning application, as in this instance. Furthermore, the Council has not raised any concerns regarding highway or pedestrian safety, and I have no reason to disagree with their conclusion.

I do not have the full details of the previously refused scheme before me, and regardless, I am only able to consider the merits of the appeal before me. The third party has also suggested a ‘compromise’ position, however the appeal process does not allow for the evolution of a scheme, and further, as I have found the scheme acceptable, advancement of the scheme is not necessary.

As the development has already been carried out and given my findings that it is acceptable in character and appearance terms, planning permission is granted in accordance with the plans submitted with the application and no further conditions are necessary in this instance.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed.