Appeal 6002483

The appeal is dismissed and planning permission is refused.

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.

The development has already been implemented. Planning permission is sought retrospectively, and I have made my recommendation on that basis.

The Council have commented that had they determined the application they would have refused planning permission for the development as they consider that it causes harm to the character and appearance of the area. I have defined the main issue on that basis.

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

The appeal site comprises a detached dwelling situated on a cul-de-sac in a modern housing estate. The site is located at the top of a shared access driveway off [address] which provides access to a small group of dwellings. Although there are solid boundary treatments in the area including timber fences, these are mostly combined with grass verges and planting. This is particularly the case on [address], where aside from the fence subject of the appeal, boundary treatments are typically setback behind greenery. Accordingly, the green spaces adjacent to boundary treatments are important features in the estate and they contribute positively to an open and verdant character and appearance in the area.

The development comprises a gravel board and timber fence which encloses part of the rear garden of the appeal property, albeit the fence is adjacent to the frontages of the dwellings on the shared driveway. The Council’s concerns partly relate to how the fence encloses a previously open green space alongside the shared driveway. In that regard, the third-party representations include a timeline of photographs which shows the appeal site in its previous form, with a grass verge and planting evident adjacent to the shared driveway. Accordingly, prior to the erection of the fence, the site also appeared to contribute positively to the open and verdant character and appearance of the area.

In contrast, due to its prominent siting at the edge of the shared driveway, the fence appears conspicuous in the street scene and incongruous in the context of the frontages of the dwellings on the shared driveway. Although the height and the materials of the fence are similar to some of the other boundary treatments in the area, the absence of a green space between the fence and the shared driveway contributes to a harsh and enclosing appearance in the area. Consequently, the fence appears as a discordant addition to the locality and has eroded the open and verdant character and appearance of this part of the estate.

Whilst glimpsed views of the fence are possible from the street, I appreciate that the visual harm of the development is primarily confined to the cul-de-sac. Even so, small scale and unsympathetic developments such as this can undermine the overall quality and character of the area. Indeed, the National Planning Policy Framework advises that the creation of high quality, beautiful and sustainable places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve. Therefore, the localised visual effect of the fence does not justify it.

I have also considered the examples of boundary treatments referred to by the appellant. The photograph of ‘[address]’ is different to the appeal proposal as it does not appear to show a timber fence adjacent to a driveway. The examples at ‘[address]’ and ‘Highfield’ do show solid boundaries adjacent to driveways. However, I have not been provided with the full details of these and so I cannot be certain that the circumstances are the same in order to give them any significant weight. In any case, I have considered the appeal proposal on its own individual planning merits and as such, the examples referred to do not lead me to a different conclusion on the main issue.

Consequently, the development is harmful to the character and appearance of the area. It is contrary to Policy BE1 of the Warwick District Local Plan 2011-2029 (2017), which amongst other matters, requires that developments positively contribute to the character and quality of the environment, relate well to local topography and landscape features and harmonise with the existing settlement in terms of physical form.

The appellant states that a fence could be erected 1 metre further back from its current location without planning permission, as this would fall within ‘Class A, Part 2 of the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) 2015’. In the appellant’s view, this creates a clear, realistic and lawful fallback position which attracts positive weight in the decision-making process.

However, there are no plans or a lawful development certificate of such a proposal before me in order to make a direct comparison. Furthermore, if the fence was setback 1 metre from its current location, this would allow space for planting between the fence and the shared driveway. This scenario would be a significant difference to the scheme and it would be less harmful than the appeal proposal. For these reasons, the fallback position referred to by the appellant does not attract significant weight in order to outweigh the harm I have identified.

Notwithstanding the concerns which have been raised in the third-party representations, the absence of the Council’s concerns on matters of highway safety, residential amenity, flood risk, drainage, trees and landscaping, as well as land ownership issues are neutral factors which do not weigh in favour of the appeal.

The development is contrary to the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations which would outweigh this conflict. Therefore, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed and that planning permission should be refused.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed and planning permission is refused.