Appeal 6002964

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development in the banner heading above is taken from the decision notice rather than that in the application form. The decision notice description is included in the appellant’s appeal form, who appears to have agreed this change with the District Council. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

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

The appeal site (No 87) comprises a two-storey semi-detached dwelling within a spacious corner plot at the junction of Greenways and Longdown. It contains a low dwarf wall near to and along the footway turning alongside the junction, and taller closeboard fencing along most of its rear boundary with No 24 Longdown. No 87’s open space is devoid of shrubbery along the footway boundary. The other taller wall located closer to the dwelling does not entirely enclose its elevations and immediate surrounds when viewed from along Longdown and Greenways.

I found this area of residential estate to have a predominantly open and verdant character and appearance, insofar as most of the roadside frontages contain low brick walls, manicured shrubbery, or varying combinations of both such features. The sense of spaciousness is accentuated by the grassed areas on the junction island and along the junction splay further beyond from No 87.

By their nature, corner plots can be more exposed to public view and for this reason, it appears to me that No 87 requires some form of stronger boundary definition. I also accept that the relevant local and national policies do not prohibit boundary treatments or require estates to remain visually static. There is also a tall closeboard side boundary fence opposite No 87, between Nos 82 and 84.

However, there are no examples in the vicinity that are similar to No 87 in terms of the extent of built enclosure along the highway boundary. The proposed fencing would be very prominent due to its close proximity to the footway along the side of No 87. It would be notably taller than the surrounding roadside walls, and there are no new planting details before me to mitigate the resultant adverse visual impact. The proposed fence would therefore stand out and contrast unfavourably with its immediate surrounds. It would thus harmfully diverge from its context, and would be inconsistent and incompatible with the immediate surrounding development.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It would thus conflict with Policy NBE9 of the Hart Local Plan (Strategy & Sites) 2032 (Adopted 2020), Policy GEN1 of the Hart District Local Plan (Replacement) 1996-2006 [name], and Policy 10 of the Fleet Neighbourhood Plan 2018-2032 (Adopted 2019). These policies require, amongst other things, development to complement, and be in keeping and well-integrated with, the immediate locality, in terms of scale, design, massing, prominence, landscaping and siting.

The National Planning Policy Framework and National Design Guide support development that provides safe places and a reasonable degree of privacy, but they also seek development to be sympathetic to local character, and to positively respond to the surrounding context. The proposal fails to achieve those two latter aims and therefore, it would not achieve an overall well-designed place as set out in the abovementioned national policy and guidance.

My attention has been drawn to various examples of fencing at other corner plot locations in the wider locality along Greenways, and at [name] and [address], at least one of which I am told has been approved within the last year or so. Most of these built enclosures are however softened by shrubbery immediately above, in front of, or alongside them. The cited sections of enclosure not softened by landscaping are outliers and located far beyond the immediate context of No 87, and therefore to do not justify allowing this appeal.

Although the proposal would cater for privacy, safety and security, it has not been demonstrated that this scheme is the only or least harmful way of addressing such matters. [name] have determined the scheme on its own merits based on the evidence before me, the lack of pre-application engagement with the District Council has had no bearing on this appeal, and is in any event not a mandatory requirement.

For the above reasons, the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole, and the material considerations before me do not indicate that a decision should be made otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. The appeal is therefore dismissed.