Appeal 6002090

The appeal is dismissed.

The planning application form states that the development has already been completed without consent. I observed that the composite fence with trellis on top is in situ, and I have determined the appeal on this basis.

A revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published for consultation during the course of this appeal. Having regard to its content and the nature of the disputed matters, I am satisfied that no prejudice would arise to either party by issuing this decision without seeking comments.

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

[address] (No 2) is a detached red brick-built dwelling which is located on the corner of [address] and [address], a residential cul-de-sac which faces towards an open field and lake. To the east of [address], the southern side of this part of [address] is semi-rural in its character, predominantly comprising open fields and countryside.

On the northern side, is a row of detached dwellings which front [address]. There is some variety in the height, materials and form of the front boundary treatment of these dwellings. However, they are typically characterised by relatively open frontages with low walls with timber fencing or railings. On either side of the corner of [address] and [address], the boundaries of dwellings are more enclosed, but the appearance of the timber fencing is softened by mature hedging. This verdant appearance continues for much of this part of [address] with open frontages, mature landscaping and trees contributing positively to the semi-rural character of the surrounding area.

The guidance at paragraph 5.13 of the ‘House Extensions Supplementary Planning Document (2012)’ (SPD) is that fences and walls can have a significant impact on the appearance of the house and the character of an area and should be sensitively and attractively designed. It further states that in prominent locations, concrete fence panels are inappropriate, and more sensitive alternatives would be expected, such as a brick wall, or brick piers with close boarded timber infill panels – with materials to match the existing development.

The low boundary wall and privet hedge along No 2’s [address] frontage has been replaced with a boundary fence. The fence is around 2.1m in height and whilst topped with a decorative trellis which allows some intervisibility, it fully encloses the [address] frontage of the host dwelling. The fence is sited at the back edge of the pavement duly avoiding an unmaintainable narrow strip of land. However, this siting, in combination with its length and substantial height means the fence is very prominent when travelling in either direction along [address]. In these views, despite the substantial width of the road, the fence appears at odds with the open frontages, low walls and hedgerows of the dwellings opposite, to the detriment of the prevailing character and appearance of the area. Moreover, the fence poorly relates to the scale of the much lower red brick wall it adjoins on the [address] frontage of the host dwelling.

The fence comprises a series of black composite panels which I observed starkly contrast with the red brick of No 2, and with its light-coloured painted concrete and brick base, and the composite faced supporting posts. Rather than appearing visually recessive, the incoherent composition, the number, texture and type of materials used, means the fence appears a discordant and strident feature in the street scene. This is notwithstanding the dark colour and matt finish of the composite panels. In conflict with the SPD guidance, although of durable materials, the fence fails to appear sensitively or sympathetically designed, nor do the materials used match the host dwelling.

Therefore, I conclude that the development has a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. Consequently, it conflicts with Policy JP-P1 of the Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan Document (2024) and Policy OA4 of [name] (2011). Together, these require all development to have regard to the materials of the surroundings and respect and acknowledge the character and identity of the locality in terms of design, siting and scale.

The personal circumstances of the appellant’s family in this case are a material consideration. I understand that the appellant struggled to maintain the pre-existing hedge which spread out over the adjacent public footpath and that there is concern in respect of a lack of privacy from pedestrian and vehicular traffic using [address]. The fence provides additional security and privacy, which I recognise is of particular importance to the appellant’s family because of disabilities, age and associated vulnerabilities. It would also align with the Framework where it requires that decisions create places that are safe, inclusive and promote health and well-being.

Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 provides that everyone has the right to respect for their private and family life and their home. The provision of a safe and secure home is directly connected to its enjoyment. I have also had regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty contained in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. This requires me to consider the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, but also to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it. Protected characteristics include a person’s disability or age.

However, I have very little evidence before me to demonstrate that the height and materiality of the fence is necessary to achieve the security and privacy which is sought by the appellant, or to justify a departure from the SPD guidance. Moreover, I have insufficient evidence to be satisfied that a safe and private environment and home for the appellant’s family could not be achieved in a manner which causes less harm to the character and appearance of the area. Therefore, whilst I have given the personal circumstances very careful consideration, they do not outweigh the harm I have identified above. Accordingly, it is necessary and proportionate to dismiss the appeal in the public interest.

The appellant has referred to a planning permission1 for a 1.75m boundary wall and fence on the same site and asserts that an increase in height to 2.1m would not materially alter the appearance in a manner which would justify refusal. I do not have full details of this permission before me, but notwithstanding the noticeable difference in height, the materials in that case differed markedly from the fence which has now been installed. As such, it is not directly comparable and, in any event, I have considered the appeal proposal on its own merits.

The Council has raised no objection in respect of car parking, highway safety or adverse impacts on neighbouring residents. However, these are neutral matters which do not weigh in favour of the proposal. I also have little persuasive evidence that composite panels are a sustainable alternative to timber, such that this would lend support to the development before me.

For the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan and material considerations do not indicate that it should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.