Appeal 6001002

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The appeal site comprises a semi-detached bungalow which lies on the corner of [address] and [address] in a residential area. The property has an existing 1.8m high fence above a low wall of concrete blocks along part of the [address] frontage and it is proposed to erect an adjoining fence to enclose an open area and bring this into the front/side garden of the property.

The Council says that before the fence the subject of the appeal was erected the corner of the site was open as mirrored in the triangular area of grass on the opposite corner of the property at No.[address].

These open areas at the corners of road junctions appear to be part of the original form and layout of the housing development locally. They help give a feeling of spaciousness and help provide a verdant space to the otherwise very built-up area of housing development.

The proposed fence takes away this feeling of openness and viewed from the public side results in a stark and prominent feature on the corner. Further, the removal of a previous car port and side extension and the removal of the previous hedge at the property do not make the new fence proposed in the current position more acceptable. I agree with the Council that the height and position of the fence is materially harmful to the character and appearance of the area.

The appellant says that there are many other gardens with similar high fences next to pavements in the area and identifies some along [address]. I looked at these at my site visit. Although there were some examples of high fences adjacent to pavements, in the main these were not at prominent corners of road junctions. These corners tended to be open or where the garden land was enclosed by hedges or lower fences which could be seen over or through. In other areas, such as on the corner with [address] there was some other green space in front of the fence which made the fence look less stark and prominent.

On its individual merits I find that the fence proposed harms the character and appearance of the area and it conflicts with the provisions of Local Plan Policies QD6.2 and QD6.4 as the character of the area will not be maintained or enhanced.

On the main issue I have found that the height and position of the fence harms the character and appearance of the area and conflicts with the relevant part of the development plan. This has to be balanced with other considerations.

I have taken account of the appeal decision on a fence in Canterbury but that was decided on the individual merits of the case and does not set a precedent for a similar decision at the appeal site. In that case the inspector found that the fence did not have a harmful overbearing impact.

I understand why the appellant wishes to bring into her garden land that she owns, especially if it has been subject to vermin and anti-social behaviour. However, these problems can be tackled in other ways without resulting in a stark fence which visually harms the open character of the area around the junction which the public are entitled to enjoy. I am also sorry to read that the appellant has suffered from stress over the issue of the fence.

The appellant also refers to a number of paragraphs in the National Planning Policy Framework especially in Section 12 concerning ‘Achieving well-designed places’. However, I do not agree that the fence has minimal scale and impact with little visual intrusion. It is not sympathetic to local character; would not have effective landscaping; nor help create an attractive welcoming place to live and visit. It therefore conflicts with parts b), c) and d) of paragraph 135 of the Framework.

[name] find that the other considerations put forward do not outweigh the local harm that would be caused to the public realm or the policy conflict.

I realise that a decision to dismiss the appeal may lead to circumstances where the fence has to be removed. This would be an interference with the appellant’s rights under Article 8 of the [name] on Human Rights as incorporated into the Human Rights Act 1998. Article 8 affords the right to respect for private and family life and home. However, it is a qualified right and interference may be justified where that is lawful, in the public interest and proportionate.

In this case the need to avoid harm to the character of a residential area is a well-established aim in the public interest. Interference would therefore be in accordance with the law. In a decision on the planning application the protection of the public interest cannot be achieved by means that are less intervening with the appellant’s individual rights. The dismissal of the appeal is proportionate and necessary and therefore would not result in a violation of rights under Article 8.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.