Appeal 6004122

The appeal is dismissed.

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 scheme, which seeks retrospective planning permission.

The main issues are a) whether or not the fencing and gates are inappropriate development in the Green Belt; their effect on b) the openness of the Green Belt; and c) the character and appearance of the area; and d) if the fence and gates are inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify them.

In regard to Green Belt development, the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) sets out, amongst other things, that such is inappropriate unless it falls within a given set of exceptions. Policy PG 3 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy 2010-2030 (LPS) and Policy RUR 11 of the Cheshire East Local Plan, Site Allocations and Development Policies Document (LP) reflect the stance of the Framework in this regard. The proposals do not fall within any of the exceptions listed in paragraphs 154 or 155. Therefore, the appeal scheme is inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

Openness is a fundamental attribute of the Green Belt and comprises both spatial and visual elements. Spatial openness is not limited to the absence of buildings but also relates to the extent to which land is perceived as open and free from development. In this case, the appeal scheme has introduced extensive and continuous timber fencing, together with solid entrance gates, along the full extent of the site’s publicly visible boundaries. These features create a defined and enclosed domestic curtilage where no such enclosure previously existed. While the site was formerly bounded by a low dry‐stone wall with post‐and‐wire fencing, these elements were visually permeable and rural in character and did not result in the same degree of enclosure. By contrast, the current fencing and gates materially reduce the spatial openness of the Green Belt by enclosing and subdividing land that would otherwise read as open countryside.

The fencing and gates also reduce the visual openness of the Green Belt. The site occupies a prominent and exposed position fronting [address], with a public footpath running along the northern and western boundaries. From both of these public viewpoints, the fencing presents a strong, visually solid boundary that interrupts views across and through the site and restricts the perception of openness beyond. In particular, the close-boarded fencing along the footpath creates an enclosing and urbanising presence that is at odds with the open and rural character of this part of the Green Belt.

The appeal scheme significantly limits visual permeability and reinforces the impression of a private, self-contained residential compound. This results in a clear loss of both spatial and visual openness, causing harm to the Green Belt as well as that arising from the development’s inappropriateness.

The appeal property is a detached dwelling, set within a strongly rural and verdant landscape, with woodland to the north, east and west and open views to the south. It is set back from a tree lined road that experiences a steady flow of traffic. The character of the immediate area is informed by low-key and informal boundary treatments, predominantly dry-stone walls and post-and-wire fencing, which allow for visual permeability and positively reinforce the open countryside character.

The horizontal timber fencing along the highway frontage, by reason of its height, length and uniform appearance, appears as an incongruous and visually dominant feature within this rural context. Similarly, the close-boarded fencing erected along the public footpath forms a continuous and imposing boundary that creates a pronounced sense of enclosure for users of the footpath, unacceptably eroding its rural and informal character. Taken together, the fencing, entrance gates and pillars, by virtue of their scale, materials and design, result in a domesticated and suburban form of boundary treatment that is poorly related to the quality of character of the surrounding countryside.

Consequently, the development conflicts with Policies GEN1 and HOU11 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Site Allocations and Development Policies Document, 2022 and Policy SE1 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy 2010-2030, 2017, and guidance contained in the Cheshire East Borough Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document Volume 1 which, amongst other things, seek to ensure that development is of a high quality design that reflects the local character, with regards to scale and appearance.

The appeal scheme may improve security for the appeal site, but it remains unclear as to whether this could not have been achieved through other, less harmful means. Neither this, nor the absence of harm to residential amenity or highway safety, nor the lack of objections from local residents, is sufficient to make the scheme acceptable.

I understand that the appellant did not intend to undertake development that required planning permission and that they expressed a willingness to amend the proposals, including additional planting and alternative boundary treatments. Whatever discussions may have taken place between the main parties during the application process, this decision must be based on the proposal as submitted to, and determined by, the Council, and on which interested parties had the opportunity to comment.

Whilst the apparent lack of engagement from the Council has caused frustration, these matters are between the main parties and do not affect my consideration of the main issue. Any concerns relating to conduct are best addressed through direct engagement with the Council, utilising any complaints procedure that it may have.

In relation to the photographic examples of other local boundary treatments cited across the wider area, the full planning history of each is not available to me. I am unaware of their planning status and the finer details such as the circumstances and context which prevailed at the time. It also remains unclear whether these treatments were implemented recently.

The appeal scheme constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It also results in a reduction in openness, both spatially and visually. In accordance with the Framework, I give substantial weight to these harms. In totality, the weight I would ascribe to the other considerations would be insufficient to clearly outweigh it. Accordingly, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist.

The proposal therefore conflicts with the aims of the development plan as I have set them out above and there are no other material considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, that indicate a decision other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.