Appeal 6001346

The appeal is dismissed.

As the boundary fence was in place at the time of my visit, I have dealt with the appeal on the basis that planning permission is being sought retrospectively.

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

The appeal site comprises a two-storey semi-detached property that faces towards [address] and is positioned close to its junction with the [address] and [address].

[address] is predominantly residential in character, however, there are several commercial uses close to its junction with [address]. Although boundary treatments are primarily low walls, some with railings on top, there are a small number of taller boundary fences. Consequently, there is some variety to the character and appearance of [address].

[address], however, has a more consistent character comprised of residential properties which are set back from the road, with front gardens that are enclosed by low walls.

The fence, which is the subject of this appeal, extends along the entire [address] frontage to the appeal site, and along the side boundaries. It is prominent in views along [address], [address] when travelling in a south-westerly direction and along [address] when approaching the junction. In such views it represents a considerably taller form of boundary treatment, and is constructed of a markedly different material, than others along [address]. Due to such differences, the fence appears incongruous in, and detracts from, the street scene.

The appellant has drawn my attention to examples of high fencing to the front boundaries of nearby properties, which I observed during my site visit. I noted that the timber fence at [address] is of a similar height and appearance as the fence before me. It is, nevertheless, set back a considerable distance from [address] behind a car park. Consequently, unlike the fence that is the subject of this appeal, it is not a prominent feature within the area. The fences, at the corner of [address] and Heritage Avenue, largely extend along [address] which, as referred to above, has a more varied character than [address] where the appeal fence is situated.

I acknowledge that such examples of high boundary fences form part of the streetscape. Nonetheless, they are not sufficient in number to define the character of the area and do not assist in the assimilation of the appeal development into its surroundings to the extent that the harm that I have identified would be mitigated.

I have also had regard to the appeal decision1, relating to a site at [name], highlighted by the appellant. I note that, in that case, the Inspector refers to the 1.8 metre fence being of the same approximate height as those in front of the adjoining properties. However, in the case before me, the fence is considerably higher than the boundary treatments of the adjoining properties.

For the foregoing reasons, the examples provided by the appellant of other boundary treatments in the area, and that set out in the above appeal decision, are not directly comparable the circumstances before me. As such, they do not provide clear or convincing justification to allow the fence that is the subject of this appeal.

The appeal site does not affect the historic environment or an area designated for its landscape quality. In addition, it does not result in an adverse effect on the living conditions of nearby residents. However, these are neutral factors that do not outweigh the harm that I have found. Furthermore, although a condition could be imposed to require the removal of the fence at a time that the nursery use ceases, in a similar manner to the Maidstone appeal decision2 provided by the appellant, that may not take place for a considerable period, if at all. Therefore, the identified harm to the character and appearance of the area would persist and would not be addressed in the short term.

Overall, I conclude that the fence is harmful to the character and appearance of the area. As such conflicts with Policy P2 of the Mansfield District Local Plan (LP), adopted September 2020, which seeks to ensure, amongst other things, that development creates a strong sense of place and respects existing patterns of development. In addition, I also find conflict with the design aims set out at chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

I have found that the fence is harmful to the character and appearance of the area and I attach substantial weight to this finding.

It is a positive consideration that the fence provides a controlled access to the nursery, in addition to a private and secure area for the children attending the nursery to play. These benefits accord with the aims of the Framework and LP to 1 APP/V2635/D/23/3326087 2 APP/U2235/W/25/3361969 create a safe, inclusive and functional environment, and I give significant weight to them in favour of the grant of planning permission

However, I cannot be certain that the identified benefits could not be achieved through a development that is less harmful. Furthermore, there is no substantive evidence before me that the proposal is essential to the viability of the business.

I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty set out under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, but the harm to the character and appearance of the area outweighs the benefits of the fence in terms of eliminating discrimination against persons with the protected characteristic of age, advancing equality of opportunity for those persons and fostering good relations between them and others. I therefore find that it is proportionate and necessary to dismiss the appeal.

The proposed development conflicts with the development plan when considered as a whole and there are no material considerations, either individually or in combination, that outweighs the identified harm and associated development plan conflict.

I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.