Appeal 6002975

The appeal is dismissed.

The application form confirms that the development has already begun, and at my site visit I observed that the fence was close to completion, although no planting had occurred. I shall thus consider the appeal on a part-retrospective basis.

I observed, upon inspection, some minor discrepancies between the built development and the proposed drawings submitted. For example, a central gap had been left in the fence, which is not shown on the drawings. For the avoidance of doubt, I am required to determine the appeal based on the drawings submitted as opposed to what I observed to have been installed on site.

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

[site address] is a detached two-storey dwelling, set some distance back from [address] (the A443). Its front boundary to the street is around 25m in length, with a vehicular access towards the right hand side of the property. The previous boundary treatment was an established hedge, with dwarf brick walls to either side of the driveway entrance and to a centrally placed pedestrian gate.

The settlement of Hallow has a village-like character, despite its location on the A443. In the vicinity of the appeal site, front boundary treatments to [address] tend to be characterised by established hedges of different heights and low brick walls, sometimes in combination. Further, a number of sites have open estate fencing to the highway boundary, sometimes in combination with juvenile hedges. As a consequence, [address] has a readily identifiable verdant, and in places open, character.

There are , along [address], isolated examples of high, close boarded fences in close proximity to the back of pavement edge, although these are limited in extent and do not either contribute positively or define the character or appearance of the local area taken as a whole. Further, whilst attention has been specifically drawn to a limited number of close boarded fences of similar height in the neighbourhood, I have not been provided with full details of these. In any event, the existence of occasional close boarded fences does not alter my finding that [address] exhibits a verdant character.

The development comprises a close boarded fence of solid specification that is intended to stand approximately 1.8m high along the entire frontage, adjacent to vehicular gates of the same material and height. The fence is set back from the front boundary leaving space for hedging to the back of pavement.

The fence is prominent in the street scene. Due to its height, length, and visually impermeable and unrelieved nature, the fence appears both stark and incongruous, particularly given the typical character and composition of nearby boundary treatments. It also contrasts unfavourably with the materials and visual texture of such treatments. Whilst a hedge to the front of the close boarded fence would, once established, assist in screening and softening the appearance of the development, planted features are not permanent, may change seasonally or over time, and are reliant upon regular maintenance to retain a consistent form.

The South Worcestershire Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document, (the SPD) 2018, advises that only in exceptional circumstances will built boundary treatments over one metre in height be appropriate adjacent to a public highway. It also states that materials of boundary treatments should always complement the character of the neighbourhood, and that expanses of close boarded fencing bordering public areas are visually unacceptable, having a negative impact on the street scene and public realm. For the reasons given above, the development would harm the character and appearance of the street scene, and would be contrary to advice in the SPD.

Due to the materials, scale and position of the fence, the development harms the character and appearance of the area. Conflict therefore arises with policies SWDP21 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan, (the Development Plan) 2016, and HAL3 of the Hallow Neighbourhood Development Plan, (the Neighbourhood Plan) 2021, which seek to ensure that development reinforces local distinctiveness and character.

There are a number of listed buildings in the vicinity, however, in-part owing to the separation distances involved, the development is not such that it harms their settings, as contributors to the significance of those buildings.

Policies SWDP25 of the Development Plan and HAL4 of the Neighbourhood Plan are cited on the Decision Notice. They relate to wider landscape character, rather than development within settlements, and appear to be of limited relevance to the appeal proposals.

The appellant has cited safety issues relating to the previous boundary treatment: that there was a danger to the general public, caused by drivers of vehicles entering and leaving the appeal site; and that it was not sufficiently secure to prevent children exiting the site and gaining access to the busy road. Whilst safety improvements weigh in favour of providing a secure and appropriate boundary treatment for the site, there is no evidence before me to suggest that this could not be provided in a way which did not result in the harm identified.

The appellant has also cited requests from the highway department and the Parish Council to improve pedestrian accessibility for children from the nearby school. Additionally, a comment from an interested party was received in support of the planning application based on potential improvements to pedestrian safety. Again, as a matter of principle, improvements to access and safety for school children and pedestrians weigh in favour of providing an appropriate boundary treatment for the site. However, there is no evidence before me to suggest that this could not be provided in a way which did not result in the harm identified.

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole and having regard to all other matters, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.