Appeal 6001914

The appeal is dismissed insofar as it related to the repositioning of boundary fence and planning permission is refused for the repositioning of boundary fence. The appeal is allowed insofar as it related to the single-storey wrap-around extension and planning permission is granted for the single-storey wrap-around extension at [site address] , Warwickshire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/0896, and the plans submitted with it so far as relevant to that part of the development hereby permitted and subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The single-storey wrap-around extension hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing no. MRM667 004C [name] and Elevations.

The external materials of the single-storey wrap-around extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling.

The appeal relates to a planning application that was not determined by the Council within the prescribed period. I note that the Council would have refused planning permission should it have made a decision on the proposal, on the grounds that the repositioning of the boundary fence would have resulted in harm to the open and verdant character and appearance of the area. It has raised no concerns with regard to the single-storey wrap-around extension and from the evidence before me, as well as my own observations, I see no reason to disagree with the Council’s position on this element of the appeal scheme.

I am satisfied that the repositioning of the boundary fence is clearly severable from the single-storey wrap-around extension, as it is physically and functionally independent. Therefore, under section 79(1) of the Act, I have the power to issue a split decision in this case.

Having regard to the parties’ submissions, I have established that the main issue is the effect of the repositioning of the boundary fence on the character and appearance of the area.

[site address] is positioned on a corner plot and has a frontage to [address], which is a winding road with treelined verges. Within the vicinity of the appeal site any high boundary treatments, such as walls or fencing, facing [address] are generally set back behind landscaping or open grassland separating the boundary treatment from the pavement. There are also vegetated areas of open space that front [address]. All these factors contribute towards a pleasant, open and verdant character and appearance to [address].

Located off [address] are numerous smaller roads and cul-de-sacs, which have a narrower feel, an absence of treelined grass verges and, generally, less landscaping within the street scene. For these reasons, I observed that these roads, including [address], have a noticeably different character and appearance to that of [address]

There are a few examples along the length of [address], including those highlighted by the appellants, where there are high boundary treatments immediately next to, or close to, the back of the pavement with no such, or limited, landscaping treatment. These examples present themselves in very stark contrast, with an adverse impact on the quality of the street scene, and do not fit in with the character and appearance of [address]. Further examples referred to by the appellants relate to other roads, including [address], which I have found to hold a different character and appearance to that of [address]

The proposal would replace the existing high boundary fence with 6ft close boarded fencing that would be positioned 500mm back from the pavement. This would consume much of the area currently given over to landscaping between the existing fence and the pavement. Consequently, this would erode the prevailing open and verdant character and appearance of [address].

Whilst a 500mm deep strip would be created to the front of the new fence, there are limited details before me as to the suitability of this space, including possible conflict with the new fence, to enable new planting to grow and become established in a manner that reflects the landscaped nature of [address]. Establishment failure of new planting would leave the new fence exposed in a location close to the back of the pavement resulting in harm as detailed above. Therefore, I am not satisfied that the proposed landscaping strip would overcome the harm identified.

I note the communication between the main parties on the matter of whether the proposal would represent a material change of use of the land. However, for the reasons outlined above, this is not a determinative factor in this case.

I therefore conclude the proposed repositioning of the boundary fence would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would be contrary to Policy BE1 of the Warwick District Local Plan 2011-2029, which seeks new developments that positively contributes to the character and quality of its environment through good layout and design, including where it would reinforce or enhance the established urban character of streets, squares and other spaces. Moreover, this element of the appeal scheme would conflict with the Council’s Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (May 2018), which requires an analysis of factors, including boundary treatments, when undertaking a character appraisal of the locality.

I acknowledge the appellants’ concern over the Council’s handling of the application. However, this is not a matter that I can consider under a Section 78 planning appeal and does not alter my findings, in which I have had regard solely to the planning merits of the proposal.

I note that no objections have been received from neighbours or consultees. However, the lack of objections does not equate to a lack of harm.

Whilst the Council does not raise any objection to the proposed development in terms of impact on the living conditions of occupants of neighbouring properties, this is a matter that does not weigh in favour or against the proposal. As such it has a neutral effect on the planning balance.

With regards to the proposed single-storey wrap-around extension, and in addition to the standard time condition, I have imposed a condition requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plan, as this provides certainty. A condition is also necessary for materials to match those used on the existing house to protect the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal proposal includes 2 different elements. Having had regard to the development plan as a whole, the Framework and all other matters raised, I dismiss the appeal in respect of the repositioning of the boundary fence. However, I allow the appeal in respect of the single-storey wrap-around extension.