Appeal 6004601

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for Change of use of land to the side of property into domestic residential curtilage use (C3) and erection of boundary fence at [site address] , Eastfield Green, Cramlington, Northumberland [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/03725/FUL, and the plans submitted with it subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans - Location Plan, Block Plan, Existing Plot Plan and [name] / 25 / 498 – 101 & Proposed Plot Plan and [name] / 25 / 498 – 201.

The appeal was accompanied by detailed information which amongst other things included analysis relating to existing fencing arrangements at and around other residential properties within the area. [name] have considered this information which the Council have had opportunity to comment on, it is [name], which relates to fencing arrangements in and around [address], onto which [address] leads which I have found of most relevance. Regardless of considering that information, [name] simply describes the fencing arrangement in and around [address], which I was able to observe from the public realm on my site visit in any event.

It is also the case that further information has been submitted by the appellant at ‘final comments’ stage. Where this relates to new information to the appeal, I have not taken the evidence into account on a procedural basis given the Council will not have been able to have the opportunity to comment on it.

Regardless of what has gone before, both parties now appear to on the basis of the evidence accept that matters relating to refusal reason No.3, which related to [name] could be dealt with via condition. Due to the provisions of Schedule 7 of the 1990 Act and as none of the statutory exemptions appear to apply in this case, the development may not be begun unless a biodiversity gain plan has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt, the scheme is subject to the standard biodiversity net gain pre-commencement condition. On this basis there need not be any conflict with Policy ENV2 of the Northumberland Local Plan (2022) (NLP). I shall not consider matters relating to refusal reason No. 3 further.

The main issue therefore is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area including the effect of the proposal on open space and green infrastructure.

The proposal relates to a grassed area which is adjacent to the existing enclosed rear and side garden at the appeal property. The un-enclosed nature of this area of grass is in keeping with the appearance of the area and of Cramlington as a whole, where more widely, extensive areas laid to grass form areas of open space which afford Cramlington a distinctive character and appearance.

The application proposes that a part of the grassed land to the side of the appeal property which is stated to be within the ownership of that property be enclosed by 2m high fencing to be incorporated as part of the garden of this property.

The benefits of this particular grassed area are limited. It is not of substantial enough size to make a significant positive contribution to the character or appearance of the area and its small size and position between existing residential properties and the footway means that its use as functional open space is limited. It is not good quality open space. For the same reasons, the contribution that the site makes to the wider green infrastructure of Cramlington is limited.

I undertook a detailed inspection of existing fencing arrangements around [address] during my site visit. Within a very short distance of the site, I was able to view 3no. properties where tall boundary fencing encloses the side gardens of residential properties in a similar way to the arrangement that is proposed at the appeal site.

The first instance of this was the fence directly adjacent to the footpath at No. [address] which encloses the grounds of that property to the side. The second was the fencing arrangement that is in place to the side of No. [address], adjacent to [address]. Further, I observed similar tall fencing to the side garden directly against the pavement further along the street at No. [address] facing onto [address].

It is also the case that the arrangement of open space immediately around the appeal site needs to be taken into consideration. There is a wide grassed verge on the opposite side of [address]. Given that there would appear to be little chance of that ever being enclosed in a similar manner given that it is set the other side of the pavement to the properties it is likely that these areas would always afford this section of the street its openness which is a positive characteristic of the street.

I therefore conclude on the main issue that there would be no significant adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area nor would there be any material detrimental effect on the provision of open space or green infrastructure within the area.

There would therefore be no conflict with policies STP 5, STP 6, QOP 1, QOP 2, QOP 3 and HOU 9 of the NLP nor policies CNP1, CNP17 or CNP25 of the Cramlington Neighbourhood Plan (2020) which amongst other things require that development is appropriate in terms of the character and appearance of the area and require development which protects green infrastructure.

I accept that due to the open wording of Policy INF 5 of the NLP, the proposal would involve the loss of open space, the loss of which has not been justified under parts a-c of that Policy. However, given the characteristics of the land and existing fencing arrangements in the immediate area, the weight I can afford to the conflict with this Policy is limited and the proposal would not conflict with the development plan as a whole.

The fence proposed as part of the scheme would in part run parallel to the driveway of No.[address] and I noted that the hedge shown on the plans was not in place at the time of my visit. The main ground floor front habitable bay window is set well across the elevation away from where the fence would run. Given this arrangement, the proposal would cause no significant adverse impacts on the living conditions of occupiers of this property with regard to daylight or sunlight or with regard to any overbearing or enclosing impact.

The standard time limit and plans condition are required to define the proposal.

There is nothing, including the Framework1 which indicates a decision other than in accordance with the development plan with which the proposal would not conflict with when taken as a whole. The appeal should therefore be allowed.