Appeal 6005006

The appeal is dismissed.

I have taken the description of the proposed development from the planning application form but have limited it to solely reflect the act of development.

The planning application form indicates that the development has already taken place. A fence to the side of the property was in place at the time of my visit. However, it is not clear whether that development accords fully with the proposal that is before me. I shall therefore consider the appeal as a standalone development and have considered the proposal on the basis of the plans that are before me.

The main issue raised by this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

The area is characterised, in the main, by open frontages to properties and open grass verges. This openness gives coherence to the character of the area that is a visually attractive quality of the environs within the estate. These open areas provide distinctiveness to both the character and appearance of the area. The appeal property has a corner siting whereby the originally unfenced grassed area to the side of the dwelling contributed to the openness of the area.

Some walls and/or fences abut highways where rear gardens side onto highways and some front gardens have been enclosed by vegetation and/or railings, photographs of which have been provided. Given this, the appellant contends that the area does not exhibit a consistent open plan character or uniform open-plan layout. However, on my observations these features do not encroach upon the open characteristics of the estate such that would undermine its character or result in the discernibility of the open plan nature of the area having been diminished or lost.

The fence would be of solid appearance and would project into the open verge to the side of the property. Given its height it would be prominently visible within the street scene. It would serve to enclose a considerable area of the grass verge to the side of the dwelling that is within the appellant’s ownership. This would visually enclose this space and create a feature that is out of keeping with the prevailing open character and appearance of the area. Consequently, the development would be harmful for this reason, despite a small strip of grass verge being retained between the new side fence and the highway. A native hedge could be planted that may soften the appearance over time. However, this would not overcome the visual harm from the reduction of open space within the estate.

I acknowledge that the development would increase security, safety and land management by preventing unauthorised use of the land that has been subject to fly-tipping, littering and dog fouling. This misuse has raised the appellant’s hygiene concerns particularly given the presence of a disabled person at the property and has detracted from the appearance and management of the site. The fence would not obstruct the footpath, reduce its width, or compromise visibility or highway safety. I note that the Highways authority have not raised an objection to the development. Whilst these are all merits of the proposed development, they do not overcome my above concerns relating to the character and appearance of the area and they do not justify an unacceptable development.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. The proposal would, therefore, conflict with saved Policies GD2, DC19 and EN27 of the Wealden Local Plan, Special Objective SPO13 and Policy WCS14 of the Wealden District Local Plan Core Strategy and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework. These policies seek, amongst other matters, development to be of high quality and promote local distinctiveness.

The Council have also referred to saved Policy EN6 of the Wealden Local Plan within its reason for refusal as set out upon the decision notice. That policy relates to the High Weald National Landscape. The appeal site is within a residential estate that already exhibits a suburban character. The appeal proposal does not introduce development into an undeveloped or rural landscape. As such, the proposal would not undermine the purposes of the High Weald National Landscape designation that would bring the proposal into conflict with Policy EN6.

The fence provides a secure, private and safe outdoor environment for a disabled person, delivering benefits to wellbeing, quality of life, safeguarding, and independence. The fence would allow for an increased area of garden space for outdoor enjoyment in a controlled environment. The current open nature of the garden does not offer the privacy or security needed. These are all benefits of the proposed development. Furthermore, it is advised that the appeal property is larger than other dwellings within the same row, with a greater internal floor area and a higher number of bedrooms. As a result, the dwelling accommodates a larger household and has a greater functional demand for usable outdoor amenity space. [name] sympathise with the personal circumstances of the appellant and family, I am mindful that the harm identified would be permanent and this is not outweighed by the appellant’s particular circumstances or other personal benefits that might arise as a result of the proposed development.

Having regard to the above findings, the appeal should be dismissed.