Appeal 6004799

The appeal is dismissed.

A draft National Planning Policy Framework ‘Plan-making and national decision-making policies’ was issued by the Government for consultation on 16 December 2025 (Consultation Draft Framework) and with a deadline for comments by 10 March 2026. No final decisions upon the consultation have yet been announced. Therefore and for this reason, I afford the Consultation Draft Framework limited weight as a material planning consideration. In respect of the main issue, I have afforded full weight to the published National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (as amended) (the Framework) and the adopted development plan for the area from the point of view of determining this appeal. In this case, the Consultation Draft Framework does not alter or outweigh my conclusion below regarding the appeal.

The appeal is made part retrospectively for development already constructed.

Reference is made in the Council’s Decision Notice to the Mobberley Neighbourhood Plan, but as this is still at a preliminary stage, I can afford it only limited weight in the determination of the appeal.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the area. Appeal Decision Appeal Ref: 6004799

The appeal property is a detached dwelling located on a corner plot with its side garden facing [address] and where the appeal proposal relates to a part retrospective application for a wooden fence, already constructed along its side garden and immediately to the back of the pavement. The fence is currently approximately 2 metres in height: the proposal is to reduce it to a height of 1.6 metres.

[address] is a double headed cul-de-sac leading from [site address] and the host property is located at the junction with it, on the stem of the cul-de sac of [address], and therefore in a location which all other residents of the cul-de sac must pass.

Dwellings in the immediate area to the host property are of a similar age and design, with some having frontages facing the road and some having side gardens facing it. Dwellings are set back somewhat from the road, while the area immediately opposite the side garden to the host property has low boundary walling with a grassed area beyond it and with mature trees, all of which creates a spaciousness to the area and which adds distinctively and positively to the entrance to the cul-de-sac and to its overall character and appearance. There is a general absence of fencing and especially of the height proposed.

The introduction of the wooden fencing immediately to the back of the pavement has introduced a harsh, stark and somewhat forbidding element into the street scene, which would not be sufficiently ameliorated, either by the proposed reduction in its height, or by staining/painting it or by its darkening through the passage of time.

I appreciate the appellant’s requirement for privacy to the side garden of the house, to the general need for security, and for the desirability of obscuring domestic paraphernalia from the public domain. I acknowledge the mental wellbeing which such privacy and security can promote. However, while I have no other proposals before me, I consider that it may be possible to achieve such outcomes in other ways which would be more sympathetic to the character and appearance of the area. Indeed, the appellant refers to the previous arrangement of hedging with fencing behind it. I acknowledge that such hedging does require maintenance, though on my site visit, I was able to note that the frontage to the host property does have hedging and which is maintained.

No objections have been made to the proposed development by neighbours or by Mobberley Parish Council, but neither do I have before me any evidence of actual support, even though the appellant states that he has discussed the application with his immediate neighbours.

In addition, the appellant refers to other boundary fences in the area and considers them to set a precedent. These include fencing at Oakhurst (corner of [address] and [site address] ), Beechcroft and [address] on [address], [name] on [address], at [address] and at No. [address]. However, I do not find that these are directly comparable to the appeal development, or else they do not represent a good design precedent to justify granting planning permission for the appeal development in its environmental context. Fencing at Oakhurst is set back, at least in part, behind a substantial grass Appeal Decision Appeal Ref: 6004799 verge and is located within a more spacious environment, as is the fencing at Beechcroft. Where, in these latter two cases, there is no such grass verge, the fencing does not enhance the street scene. Fencing at 24, [address] is far more limited in extent and is in a far less prominent location, while the other quoted cases detract from the character and appearance of the area and do not represent good design. Moreover, I have no information before me as to their planning histories, and In any event, I have determined the appeal based upon its individual merits.

I appreciate that the proposed boundary fencing to the host property does not present any highway safety issue, though this is a matter of neutral consequence in decision making terms.

Therefore, I conclude that the development conflicts with policies SE1 and SD2 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy 2017 which require, amongst other things, that development creates a high quality environment which reflects the character and design of the area. The development also conflicts with policies GEN1 and HOU11 of the Cheshire East Site Allocations Development [name] 2022 and with chapter 12 of the Framework which require development to be of good design in keeping with the character and appearance of the area in which it is set.

There are no material planning considerations that indicate that the application should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.