Appeal 6005262

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a boundary fence (1.65m high) at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/2595, and the plans submitted with it.

An application for costs was made by [name] against North Norfolk District Council. This is the subject of a separate decision.

I have used the description given on the decision notice in my formal decision above as this more accurately describes the proposed development.

The evidence indicates that the development is retrospective and the fence has been installed. This aligns with what I observed during my site visit.

Reference is made to whether the fence is permitted development under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (GPDO). However, it is not for me under a section 78 appeal to determine whether a development would comply with the GPDO or would be lawful. It would also be open to the appellant to apply for a separate determination under sections 191 or 192 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 irrespective of the outcome of this appeal.

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

The appeal site relates to a detached dwelling on a corner plot within the [site address] , which is predominantly residential in character. Surrounding properties are mostly set back from the road and have modest enclosed front gardens with boundary treatments that either define the back edge of the road or are set behind shallow verges. There is relatively little consistency between the types of front boundary enclosures in the area and examples can be seen of hedging, brick walls and fences of differing heights and styles, giving the area a varied character and appearance.

While some low boundary treatments exist in close proximity to the appeal site, the area has a relatively dense urban grain with properties generally positioned close to each other and to the road, which is relatively narrow. This, along with some of the taller boundary treatments present in the area, gives the area a relatively enclosed character.

I have no means of confirming what previous boundary treatment existed around the frontage of the appeal site. However, the appeal scheme is for an approximately 1.65m fence along the front perimeter of the site. Although it is taller and more extensive than some other front boundary treatments in the immediate area, its overall height is not perceptibly out of scale with surrounding boundary enclosures. Its scale and style are also similar to other front boundaries in prominent locations, including around corner plots throughout the [site address] , which I observed to be too numerous to be described as isolated examples. As such, irrespective of its planning status, fencing has become part of the established character of this area.

Consequently, despite its overall length and height, the fence that has been installed at the appeal site does not appear incongruous or out of character with its surroundings. In addition, although the site occupies a prominent corner plot, as the fence has been set back behind a shallow grass verge it does not have a visually imposing effect in the street scene, particularly when compared to other fences on similar corner plots in the area. Moreover, as the area already has a relatively enclosed appearance, the fence has not uncharacteristically compromised the overall spaciousness of the street scene either.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the appeal scheme does not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, I find no conflict with Policy ENV8 of the North Norfolk Local Plan 2024-2040, insofar as it encourages high quality design that respects local character.

Concerns are raised in relation to the fence obstructing visibility around the corner and the effects on pedestrian and highway safety. However, given the low speed limits within the [site address] , the Council has raised no objections on this basis. From what I have seen and read, I see no reason to take a different view.

As the fence has already been installed, it is not necessary for any conditions to be imposed.

For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme accords with the development plan, when read as a whole. There are no material considerations that indicate a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan. Accordingly, I conclude the appeal should be allowed.