Appeal 6000918

The appeal is dismissed.

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.

On my site visit, I observed that the hedge shown on the existing drawings had been removed and a fence erected in its place. Therefore, the appeal is for retrospective development works.

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

The appeal dwelling occupies a corner plot on a residential cul-de-sac at the edge of the village. Surrounding properties are set back from the road behind front gardens and driveways, with boundary treatments predominately comprising shrubs, trees and hedges planted behind low walls. This gives the street an open, verdant character that contributes positively to its rural setting.

Due to its timber and concrete construction, combined with its height and substantial length along the side and rear of the appeal site, the fence appears as a harsh and discordant feature that, notwithstanding the street being a relatively recent extension to the village, fails to assimilate with the typically low level and soft landscaped treatments bounding neighbouring plots. This is accentuated by the fence’s prominent siting close to the pavement edge which gives it an unduly dominant appearance that, together with its incongruous design, significantly diminishes the street’s green and spacious character. [name] acknowledge the appellant would be willing to reorientate the panels, apply stain, and provide planting to help soften its visual appearance, these changes would be insufficient to overcome the fundamental harm arising from the fence’s combined siting, scale and materiality.

My attention has been drawn to other examples of fencing in the area. However, the two fences located at either end of the turning head are either significantly shorter in length than the appeal scheme or positioned more discreetly in relation to the pavement. The fence referred to on Town Street is also physically separate from the appeal site and therefore has different visibility within the street scene. I do not have the full planning history of the fence located at the entrance to the Paddocks before me and so I cannot be certain of the planning context in which it may have received permission, if at all. As such, these limited examples do not justify a development that appears incongruous in its immediate setting.

While it is reasonable to expect some form of garden enclosure, particularly on a corner plot, where the occupiers include young children, I am unconvinced that the development before me is the only means of achieving privacy, security and containment. Local support for the fence and the removal of a hedge that may have become overgrown or unsightly also do not justify a development that, for the above reasons, is harmful.

Consequently, the development has an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. It therefore conflicts with Policy ST33 of the Bassetlaw Local Plan (2024) and Policy 7 of the Lound Neighbourhood Plan (2022) which require, amongst other things, that development is of high quality design and that particular attention is given to boundary treatments that reflect the surrounding character. For the same reasons, it also conflicts with the requirements for good design in the National Planning Policy Framework.

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

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