Appeal 6004137

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development on the application form provides a detailed explanation of the appeal scheme. For conciseness, in the banner heading above, I have therefore used the description of the scheme given on both the Council’s decision notice and in the appellant’s case. However, on my site visit, I also saw that the wall and fence had been constructed. I have determined the appeal on that basis, noting the plans submitted with it but altering the description accordingly.

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

The appeal property is a detached red brick dwelling on the northern side of Fieldside. It is one of a small group of similarly scaled houses arranged along a consistent building line and set well back from the road behind generous front gardens. It occupies a slightly elevated position above the highway, separated from it by a modestly sloping grass verge and a wide pavement that incorporates both a footpath and cycleway. In the vicinity of the appeal site, the properties are mainly delineated by hedgerows, as well as some walled perimeters. The wide highway corridor along with the grass verge, street trees, and vegetated boundaries combine to give this part of Fieldside a verdant and spacious character.

The appeal scheme comprises a front boundary that extends to just over 13 metres in length adjacent to the pavement. The lower section is constructed in red brick to a height of approximately 1.15m. Above that are black composite fence panels that are approximately 0.85m in height, taking the overall scale of the enclosure to 2m. These panelled sections are punctuated by 6 red brick piers that extend to approximately 2.175m in height.

The Council’s Revised Transitional Developer Guidance (2023) (TDG) advises that front boundary treatments should use vertical features, including robust walls and hedges, and should generally remain low, typically between 0.9m and 1.2m. Whilst the TDG is not adopted supplementary planning guidance, it is capable of being a material planning consideration. Even though I have attributed limited weight to it in the determination of this appeal given its informal status, it does clarify that the purpose of lower boundaries is to enable full views of the front of the dwelling.

On my site visit, I observed some variation in the height of boundary treatments in the immediate vicinity of the appeal site. However, I saw that front boundary walls are generally below 2 metres and, therefore, lower than the appeal scheme. They consequently do not obscure views of the front of houses from the street to the same extent as that of the appeal property from Fieldside. [name] saw that hedgerows to front boundaries are often higher, these provide a softer, more natural form of enclosure and contribute positively to the area’s landscaping, appearing less stark than a solid wall and fence. Standing in front of the site, I also observed no other front boundaries incorporating black fence panels similar to those used at the appeal property. In this context, even if the red brick used in the construction of the front boundary matches the house, and the black colour of the cladding is somewhat recessive, the appeal scheme as a result of its length, height and materials nonetheless appears incongruous in the streetscape.

I recognise that the appeal scheme replaced a wooden fence of approximately 1.8m in height that was in situ for a number of years. The lawfulness of that boundary is not a matter before me. However, I have no substantive evidence to indicate that the former fence lacked durability or robustness when compared to the present structure. Moreover, the appeal scheme is higher than the fence it replaced. Its resultant scale further reduces inter-visibility between the street and the dwelling and front garden. It presents an unduly dominant expanse of brickwork and panelling that is consequently visually harmful to the street scene, particularly given its slightly elevated position above the road and proximity to the pavement.

The appellant has drawn my attention to several examples of boundary walls along Fieldside and [address] that are above 1.6 metres and which the appellant considers to be comparable. It includes the wall to the neighbouring dwelling at [address], which extends to approximately 2.1 metres. However, the Council indicate that this neighbouring boundary does not benefit from planning permission. Nor have I been provided with details of any planning permissions relating to the other boundaries, nor their history. Therefore, I cannot be certain as to the detailed considerations that applied in those cases. Consequently, I afford them limited weight and they do not provide a justification for the appeal scheme, which I must consider on its individual merits.

For these reasons, I find that the appeal scheme is harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. As such, it conflicts with Policies 41, 42 and 44 of the Doncaster Local Plan 2015-2035 (2021). These policies seek to ensure, amongst other matters, that development is of a high quality that responds positively to its context, including with regard to scale and form. It also fails to accord with the good design aims of the National Planning Policy Framework.

The appellant contends that the appeal scheme addresses previous issues of theft from the garden and damage to the boundary when the previous fence was in situ. I recognise that Fieldside is a reasonably busy thoroughfare, not least between the train station and Thorne town centre and other facilities. I also acknowledge that the front garden is the main social and outdoor living space for the occupiers of the appellant’s household. However, I have not been provided with details of the frequency of these incidents, or the period over which they took place. I also have no substantive evidence that a boundary of the present height and design is the only means of achieving the stated privacy and security objectives. As such, these considerations do not outweigh the harm that I have identified above.

I have considered the appellant’s rights under Article 8 of the [name] on Human Rights, which effectively affords the right to the protection of property and respect for private and family life. It is, however, a qualified right where interference may be justified in the public interest, having due regard to the concept of proportionality. Dismissing the appeal would interfere with the appellant’s rights under Article 8, because the consequence would be that the appellant would be unable to enclose the front garden as presently constructed. However, given the harm I have identified, the interference is in accordance with the law and pursues a legitimate aim, which is the regulation of the development of land in the public interest through the planning process. Given the circumstances overall, I find that dismissal of the appeal is both proportionate and necessary.

From what I saw on site, the front boundary appears to have been well constructed. However, even if it has received a positive response from local residents, and even with the absence of any identified harm by the Council to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, or highway visibility or safety concerns, this does not justify development that would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

I acknowledge the matter raised by a third party in respect of the siting of the boundary wall and land ownership. However, this is a civil matter to be resolved between the relevant parties. In any event, I am dismissing the appeal for the reasons given.

The appeal proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole, and there are no material considerations that would indicate a decision otherwise would be appropriate. For the reasons given above, I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.