Appeal 6001823

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for 2.7m high timber fence on rear boundary and the boundary with No 44 The Causeway at [site address] , [name] [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/02353/HOU.

The application form confirms that the development has been completed and I was able to see this during my site visit. The development appears to be in accordance with the plans before me. I have, therefore, determined the appeal on the basis that the development has already taken place.

References to “retrospective” and “application” in the description of development on the application form are not forms of development. I have, therefore, amended the description in my decision to remove words not relating to acts of development.

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

The appeal property is a semi-detached dwelling located within an area which is residential in character. The surrounding area has a varied topography, rising towards an area of public open space located to the rear of the appeal property. The rear gardens of the appeal property and its neighbours are sloping and set below the level of the open space to the rear.

Boundary treatments surrounding these gardens vary in their designs and heights. In general, however, boundary treatments comprise wooden fences. Some of these fences, particularly to the rear of gardens, are relatively tall. As a result of the fencing, the openness of the character of the immediate area is relatively limited.

The appeal proposal is a fence of 2.7m in height along the rear boundary of the appeal property and the boundary between it and 44 The Causeway.

I observed on site that the side fence is of a broadly comparable height to the existing fence along the boundary with No 44, taking into account the trellis which tops that fence. I also observed that the side fence is comparable in height and design to that which separates the appeal property from 40 The Causeway. The rear boundary fence reflects the height of that at No 40. In this regard, the fence does not appear incongruous as a result of its height.

I acknowledge that the fence has a more solid appearance than some nearby fences. However, its appearance is in keeping with and no more solid than the fence separating the appeal property from No 40, which I observed does not detract from the character and appearance of the area.

Therefore, taking the height and design of nearby fences into account, I am satisfied that the proposal does not appear overly intrusive or dominant.

For these reasons, I conclude that the development does not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. As such, it accords with the relevant provisions of Policy DM10 of the Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2012) and Policy D3 of the London Plan 2021. Among other things, these policies seek development which responds to the existing character of a place and respects, maintains or enhances typical details and key features which contribute to character and local distinctiveness.

The Council highlights that the fence would not benefit from permitted development rights due to its height. Nevertheless, I am assessing the proposal before me and I have reasoned above why I have not identified harm with the development. Therefore, this matter does not lead me to an alternative conclusion on the main issue.

Concerns have been raised by the occupiers of No 44 regarding the effect of the proposed development on their living conditions, with particular regard to daylight/sunlight and outlook. As noted above, from my observations on site, the appeal proposal is a broadly comparable height to the existing fence at No 44. As such, while it is a more solid structure, I am satisfied that the fence would not materially harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No 44 with regard to daylight/sunlight or outlook. I note that the Council did not have any concerns in this respect either.

I acknowledge the concerns raised by the occupiers of No 44 regarding the suitability of the fence for restricting access to the garden of the appeal property by foxes and restricting access to the garden of No 44 by the cats residing at [address] and the presence of other entry points to the garden. Ultimately, however, these matters do not provide sufficient justification to depart from my conclusion on the main issue.

Any works carried out on land not within the ownership of the appellant would be a private matter between the landowner and the appellant.

As the development has already taken place, conditions relating to the time limit for implementation and compliance with the submitted plans are not necessary.

I have not imposed the condition suggested by the Council regarding the [name] as this document is not before me and I do not consider the condition necessary given the minor nature of the development. I also note that within the Council’s Officer Report reference is made to a [name] being appropriate in this case.

For the reasons given above, the proposed development would comply with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be allowed.