Appeal 6001547

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 fencing has been erected at the appeal site which exceeds the height of the fencing proposed. For the avoidance of doubt, I have made my recommendation based on the proposal and associated plans that were before the Council at the time of its decision.

It has been suggested by the appellant that the Council did not undertake consultation of the application and no comments were received. However, as part of the appeal documentation I have been provided with comments from several neighbouring residents, Cam Parish Council and the Public Rights of [name] which I have considered in making my recommendation.

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

The appeal property is a detached dwelling located off a shared driveway at the end of a cul-de-sac. The dwelling faces out onto open countryside with a public footpath that runs along the front boundary and turns off to the side leading to [address]. The area is characterised by two-storey dwellings which are cohesive in form and layout, with open frontages and driveways. Where there are front boundary treatments, they are predominantly formed of low hedging which allows for views across front gardens and contributes positively to the open character of the area.

As is common in many residential estates, rear gardens are enclosed by fencing and walls. Indeed, the rear garden of [address] which is located next to the appeal property is enclosed by fencing. However, while discernible when viewed next to the appeal site, it is characteristic of a rear boundary treatment and distinguishes the rear of one cul-de-sac from the front of another.

While the proposed fencing would be lower in height, it would nonetheless be prominent and the use of solid materials that are not generally used as front boundary treatments in the locality would make it appear as an incongruous addition. Furthermore, given that it would run along the full frontage of the appeal property and extend around the side, it would enclose the front of the property which would not reflect the consistent and open character of the area.

The proposal would therefore have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area.

Consequently, it would not comply with Policies CP14 and ES12 of the Stroud District Local Plan (2015) which seek well designed places and require development to be of an appropriate design and appearance, which is respectful of its surroundings.

The appellant has provided examples where walls and fencing have been installed at side boundaries nearby to separate properties from adjacent footpaths. I acknowledge that they are of similar height to the proposal, however they are not comparable given that they only extend along the side and do not enclose the front boundary. An extract has been provided from what is said to be a Government issued document on householder Permitted Development Rights. The appellant suggests that nearby dwellings could all erect a 1m high fence along the front boundary of their properties and compromise the open nature of the area. Notwithstanding this, I have identified material harm arising from the appeal proposal based on site specific characteristics and related conflict with the development plan. A condition restricting the fencing to the side boundary only would not be appropriate as it would materially alter the proposal that was considered by the Council.

I note anecdotal evidence of the driveway of the appeal property being used as a short cut to the footpath. As such, I understand that the main purpose of the proposal is to provide security and visual screening. However, I have not been provided with any evidence that this is the only way of achieving this objective and there may be other means that do not harm the character and appearance of the area.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan read as a whole. There are no material considerations advanced, which indicate the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. 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.