Appeal 6004785

The appeal is dismissed.

The fencing has already been erected. The main issue in this appeal therefore is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The appeal property is a two-storey house located on the corner of [address] and [address], within a residential area. The surroundings can be characterised as containing predominantly traditional, semi-detached dwellings in fairly open plots. Some have low level front walls and fences, with or without planting on the boundaries. In some instances, taller boundary hedges and shrubs are somewhat overgrown, however this does not detract unduly from the local character. Overall, the street scene has a sense of openness, particularly at corners, which contributes to the pleasant character and appearance of the surrounding area.

As erected, the boundary treatment comprises a 6ft close-boarded boundary fence erected inside a low-level brick wall. It encloses the corner of the site, next to the public footpaths of both adjacent roads. The appellant erected the fence in order to improve the privacy and safety of the property, including by preventing unauthorised access, and to secure pets.

In this decision I have had regard to the requirements of the [address] Extension Guidelines Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) which, in summary and of relevance to this appeal, requires boundary walls and fences adjacent to the road to follow the height, style and material of existing boundary treatments in the locality and seeks to avoid the introduction of prominent hard-landscaping features.

The height and material of the timber fencing is typical of residential boundary treatments, particularly in suburban areas. However, such fencing is usually found around rear gardens, rather than at the front of properties or around the perimeter of corner properties. I found that the fencing is a dominant, overbearing and visually intrusive feature in the street scene. Furthermore, as it extends around the corner of the 2 roads, it is highly visible and these harmful effects are exacerbated. The fencing harms the open character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The appellant suggests planting between the retained fencing and the low boundary wall for reasons including softening the appearance of the fencing. However, in my experience, insufficient space remains in this area for plants or shrubs to thrive and to provide the extent of fence cover that is suggested. Furthermore, the limited planting that is possible here would be most unlikely to generate or support the wildlife or the other ecological benefits that are claimed.

[name] can fully appreciate the appellant’s reasons for erecting the fencing, there are other means by which these objectives could be achieved without harming visual amenity. Indeed, the Guidelines note that the use of soft landscaping can provide an effective boundary whilst enhancing the green character of suburban streets.

There are some fences in the area around the appeal site. However, these are either at low level and/or are within a different context to the appeal site. I saw no examples of fencing that are as extensive, stark and visually obtrusive as the

I conclude overall that the boundary fence harms the street scene and the character of the local area. The proposal therefore fails to comply with Policies P10 and P15 of the Solihull Local Plan which, among other things and of relevance to this appeal, seek good quality, inclusive and sustainable design that conserves and enhances local character and streetscape quality. The proposal is also contrary to the SPD guidance. There is further conflict with the similar aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

In terms of other matters raised, a neighbouring occupier suggests that the fencing obscures the sightlines of pedestrians and drivers at the road junction. This concern is not borne out by the comments of the Highway Authority. Together with my observations at the site visit, there are no reasons to disagree with its professional assessment or the Council’s decision in this regard.

The appellant’s concerns about the lack of response from the Council to requests for advice prior to erecting the fencing and the Council’s process of determining the application are matters more appropriately addressed by the Council’s own internal/complaints procedures. They are not matters that can be considered as part of this appeal which has been determined on its own site-specific planning circumstances. Similarly, damage caused to footpaths by garden landscaping and the maintenance of such public areas are not matters that can be taken into account in this decision.

I have had regard to all other matters raised; however, none affect my conclusions on the relevant planning matters. Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed.