Appeal 6004655

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal relates to a close-boarded fence that has already been implemented on site. I have determined this appeal on this basis and with regard to the plans before me. Having visited the site, I am satisfied that the plans appear to accord with what is on the ground. However, I have removed the word ‘retrospective’ from the banner heading above, as this is not a description of development.

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

The proposal relates to a stretch of close-boarded fencing adjacent to the public highway of [address]. The surrounding area is predominantly residential, with properties set within established building lines. [address], dwellings are typically set back from the road, with modest front gardens and driveways. Boundary treatments include open grassed areas, stone walls, hedgerows and some low-level timber fencing, which collectively create a sense of space, soften the urban grain, and reinforce the area’s open character.

Opposite the appeal site, there are also lawned frontages without boundary treatments, which contribute positively to the character of the locality. During my site visit, I observed that several properties along [address] have low wooden slatted fencing that appears visually open. While close-boarded fencing is present, its height is generally low and it appears less prevalent than the slatted fencing, which seems to be the dominant form of fencing treatment along the road.

The development, by virtue of its height, extent, design and appearance, fails to integrate into its surroundings and harms the character and appearance of the area. Its scale and siting alongside the highway, particularly opposite a road junction, gives it a prominent position and discordant presence that is at odds with the prevailing open and verdant street-scene.

Although the fence is made from wood, a natural material, its current appearance is a substantial solid structure of a bright colour, creating a stark and imposing feature. While the wooden fencing would weather over time and a condition could be imposed were I to allow the appeal requiring the wood to be painted or treated, this would not address the harm arising from the positioning and form which is obtrusive within the street-scene.

The appellant claims that if the fence was part of a planning application for a housing development, then this would be standard practice when enclosing a rear garden. However, the Council’s Joint Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (adopted 2022) at paragraph 4.16 is clear that “close-boarded or panel fencing is generally not an appropriate boundary treatment for prominent locations, such as street frontages.”

Furthermore, its position abutting the footpath creates an uncharacteristically enclosed frontage for pedestrians. Consequently, the fencing would appear as a dominant and incongruous feature, to the detriment of the area’s established character and appearance.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the development does not accord with Core Policy 37 of the Vale of White Horse District Council’s Local Plan 2031 Part 1 [name] and Policies (adopted 2016), which seeks to ensure development responds positively to the site and its surroundings. It also fails to accord with the National Planning Policy Framework, particularly paragraphs 135 and 139, which require well designed development which maintains the character and appearance of the area within which it is located.

My attention has been drawn to existing fencing, which is approximately [address]. However, I have no evidence before me as to the planning history of this fencing, or indeed of any of the other fencing in the immediate area. In addition, this other fencing has a much more limited extent than the appeal fencing and therefore has a significantly different and less jarring visual impact. I do not consider that it sets a precedent, and in any event, I have determined the appeal on its own merits.

My attention has been drawn to other examples of fences. Nevertheless, it is not clear from the evidence where these other fences are located, and I have not been provided with any planning history details. I therefore attach limited weight to these other examples, none of which appear to be directly comparable to the development before me.

The appellant suggests that had the fence been applied for at the time when the houses along [address] were being built, it is unlikely that there would be any opposition. However, the evidence before me indicates that a fence was not previously erected in this location and instead a vegetated strip of land was retained as a soft landscape feature. There is no evidence before me to suggest otherwise.

The appellant states that the original fence, which was set further back from the highway, was damaged by high winds and could not be repaired due to its age. While it is unfortunate that the original fence could not be repaired, the fence panel subject to this appeal has not been erected in the same position as the original fence. Its siting is closer to the highway, and the removal of the vegetation combined with its solid design and stark colour has made it highly visible along [address].

The appellant indicates that there were no objections from the Parish Council, Historic England, or the Council’s Heritage and [name]. Nevertheless, the lack of objections in this regard is a neutral matter that does not weigh in favour of the development.

The development is located near to [name], a [name]* listed building, and the Dovecote, a [name] listed building. It is also adjacent to the Conservation Area (CA). I am required to have regard to the preservation of the setting of the listed buildings and the CA. Given the location and extent of the proposal, the settings of these listed buildings and the CA would be preserved and the contribution they make to the assets’ significance would not be harmed. I note the Council raised no concerns in this respect either.

In addition to the matters I have addressed above, letters of objection from local residents have raised other concerns including highway safety issues. These other matters are not in dispute between the main parties and as I am dismissing the appeal, I do not need to give these matters further consideration.

The development would conflict with the development plan when taken as a whole. There are no material considerations which indicate that the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.