Appeal 6003317

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for retrospective permission for the erection of a fence to the [address] boundary at [site address] , Brinscall, Lancashire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00727/FULHH, and the plan and photograph submitted with it.

A consultation draft of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published on 16 December 2025. Given that this is at the consultation stage and taking into account the matters before me, I do not consider it necessary to invite comments from the parties.

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

No [site address] is on the corner of [address] and [address]. [address] is a residential road off [address], [address] is a main thoroughfare in Brinscall. It is also a bus route. A timber panel fence with concrete post has been erected along a section of No 1A’s garden boundary with [address]. The fence continues at right angles to meet the corner of the house to enclose an area of rear garden. A large area of open grassed lawn and a hardsurfaced drive remain unenclosed. The submitted documents show photographs of an unpainted fence but at the time of my site visit, the panels were painted black.

The fence comprises [address] to the back of the pavement. Other than the lawned garden, there is a small tree close to the edge of the fence. The location of the house facing the corner of the two roads makes it very visible in the street scene. The fence however, is set away from the corner.

Despite its proximity to the road and high visibility together with the lack of any landscaping to soften its impact, the fence is not unduly intrusive in the street scene. It is most notable from [address] from the east and directly opposite but due to the curve in the road, it is less noticeable from the west. There are no other similar fences in the area and hedges and low boundary walls are more characteristic of the area. However, given the relatively short stretch of fencing when viewed in the street scene as a whole, it is not unduly intrusive. The openness of the frontage to No 1A appears quite stark, highlighted by the white render to the ground floor of the house and the cladding above but the fence itself is not excessively so. Given the scale of the proposal, it is not sufficiently oppressive, discordant or at odds with the residential character of the area as to warrant refusal.

Therefore, I do not consider that the proposal would conflict with Local Plan 1 Policy BNE1 or the Council’s Householder Design Guidance SPD2 which collectively seek to ensure that development, including boundary treatments, do not have a significantly detrimental impact on the surrounding area due to matters such as height, scale, massing and design, and landscaping.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.