Appeal 6002617

The appeal is dismissed.

The address of the appeal site differs slightly on the application form to that used on the Council’s decision notice. I have used the address sited on the decision notice as this more accurately describes the site’s location.

At my site visit I saw a fence had been erected which matched that shown on the submitted plans and I have considered the appeal on that basis.

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

The appeal relates to a semi-detached property on a corner plot within a predominantly residential area. Before the fence was erected, most of the boundary with the highway was defined by a low brick wall. Front boundary treatments in the local area are largely characterised by low brick walls that reflect the materials and appearance of the dwellings in the locality. Taller boundary treatments are limited, comprising a mix of hedgerows and timber fencing. Overall, the prevailing character of the area is one of openness.

The proposal encloses the rear and part of the side garden, with the new boundary treatment abutting the pavement on [address]. Although it is set back from [address], its prominent position and overall scale, including a substantial projection from the side elevation, creates an overly dominant and visually intrusive feature within the street scene. The use of concrete frames further contributes to the stark appearance of the boundary treatment. Consequently, the development causes harm to the predominantly open character and appearance of the area. Whilst the previous situation allowed views of the rear garden fences, these were less visually prominent and served primarily to separate neighbouring properties rather than forming a hard, continuous edge to the pavement.

The appellant has identified examples of fencing in the local area, including on other corner plots, which I viewed during my site visit. A timber fence exists at the front of the adjoining property, but it is lower, less solid, and therefore not directly comparable. It is also one of the few fences that directly forms a boundary with the pavement along this part of [address]. The fence located at the property diagonally opposite the appeal site is set behind a low brick boundary wall and is finished in a green colour. These design features, combined with the adjacent vegetation, soften its appearance and reduces its prominence. Many of the other examples provided relate to fences set on or behind low brick walls, which helps maintain a relationship with the wider built environment. Some corner plots are also enclosed by hedgerows set behind low boundary walls.

I acknowledge that some examples are similar in design to the appeal proposal, although they are not located in the immediate vicinity. However, I have limited information regarding their planning history and so cannot make a direct comparison. I therefore attach limited weight to these examples. They do not alter my assessment of the harm identified above, nor do they justify introducing a boundary treatment that further erodes the area’s open character.

I conclude that the fence causes harm to the character and appearance of the area. Conflict therefore arises with Policy JP-P1 of the Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan Document (2024) (PfE) which seeks to ensure that development respects and acknowledges the character and identity of the locality in terms of design, siting, size, scale and materials used.

The development also conflicts with the Council’s SPD4 - A Guide for [name] and Alterations (2012). Whilst recognising that boundary treatments on corner plots may need to be of a sufficient height to provide privacy, it emphasises that the prevailing residential character should be safeguarded, and overly tall boundaries that dominate the street scene should be avoided. It also makes clear that poor local examples do not justify further unsympathetic development. Furthermore, the proposal also raises conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework, which seeks to ensure that development adds to the overall quality of the area, is visually attractive and establishes or maintains a strong sense of place.

A condition relating to alternative materials has been suggested by the appellant, but this would not sufficiently mitigate, nor remove, the harm identified.

No objections have been received from occupants of neighbouring properties or consultees. I also acknowledge that the Council did not provide the appellant the opportunity to address its concerns. However, these matters are neutral in the

The fence provides private garden space and a secure area for storage. It also potentially reduces opportunities for crime and anti-social behaviour, particularly due to the proximity to several sports venues and the resulting high footfall in the area and, in this regard, complies with part 8 of PfE policy JP-P1. I recognise that being a corner plot, the side boundary needs to be made secure and, in that respect, the fence is of benefit to the appellant. However, the benefits of the proposal, and other matters raised, do not outweigh the harm identified above.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole, and there are no material considerations that outweigh this conflict. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.