Appeal 6003662

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the development described as “moving of garden fence outwards towards land boundary, in order to facilitate better maintenance and re-wilding of area” at [site address] West and Chester [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 23/02988/FUL, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted relates to the following approved plans, drawing references: PP-12399578v1 and 14 14-54.

The height of the fence hereby permitted shall not at any time exceed 1.8 metres when measured from the ground level to which it is attached.

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 description of development does not refer to the retrospective nature of the fence, but it is clear from the main parties’ cases and my site visit that this is so. The main issue in regard to which is its effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area.

The appeal site occupies a prominent corner plot in a residential area. It features a grass verge to the side currently enclosed by timber fencing, which is subject to this appeal. The surrounding area is largely characterised by open front driveways, hedgerow and plantings, and brick pillars with metal railings. These collectively contribute to the open and spacious feel of the estate. However, a number of nearby corner plots are defined by tall timber fencing. These either run close to, or along the edge of the public footway, creating an enclosed side and rear boundary. These can be viewed at Number [address] (No. 25) directly opposite to the appeal site, and at Numbers [address], 39 and [address], and 14, 22 and [address].

The fence has resulted in the loss of soft landscaping to the street, and its new position brings it closer to, and further forwards towards the public pavement. Even so, it integrates well with the prevailing boundary treatments on the nearby corner plots referred to above, which feature similar fencing in terms of siting, scale and design. Whilst the proposal creates a staggered fenceline that projects beyond the side fencing of Number [address], it aligns with and mirrors the positioning of the opposing neighbouring treatment at No. 25. As such, it does not appear as an incongruous or discordant feature. The openness along [address] is also still retained, due to the fence being set well back behind the appeal property. Moreover, it is of a similar scale to the original fence and remains as a subordinate feature to the host dwelling.

Therefore, the proposal does not cause harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling or surrounding area. As such, it complies with Policy ENV 6 of the Local Plan Part One, [name] 3 and DM 21 of the Local Plan Part Two, and the Supplementary Planning Document: [name] and [name]

Together, and amongst other things, these policies and guidance require developments to be of high quality design, with boundary treatments to have regard to the character and appearance of the original dwelling and wider setting.

Whilst a representation has expressed a preference for a hedge rather than a fence, the proposal has retained two existing trees, which provide a natural feature above the fenceline. There is also a grass verge next to the rear garden. It is within the appellant’s ownership and has been maintained alongside their domestic garden without any apparent issues. As such, the incorporation of this area into the rear garden is unlikely to introduce new environmental risks.

To provide certainty and for enforcement purposes, it is necessary to impose a condition to specify the approved plans the development relates to. As the development has been fully constructed, a condition for a time limit and to control materials is not necessary. Particularly since I see no reason to find the materials it has been constructed in unacceptable. No information is provided in relation to the fence’s height. However, the appellant confirms that it is 1.8 metres high and a condition will be imposed to ensure the development does not exceed this.

For the reasons given above, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed given it complies with the development plan and there is nothing compelling to suggest a decision other than in accordance therewith.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted, subject to the conditions set out.