Appeal 6005569

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the incorporation of land into residential curtilage and erection of domestic wooden shed and associated fencing at [site address] , Crowland, Spalding, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref H02-0643-25, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 1671-1_FP_LP101 (Location Plan) 1671-1_FP_SP102 [name] (Proposed Site Plan) 1671-1_FP_GA01 ([name]) 1671-1_FP_GA02 (Proposed 1.[address] boarded fence)

No development above ground level in respect of the shed hereby permitted shall take place until details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the shed have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Prior to the erection of the fence or shed hereby permitted, a scheme of soft landscaping shall be submitted to and be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include a full specification of all proposed planting, including the quantity, size, species, and positions or density of all trees/plants/shrubs to be planted, how they will be planted and protected and the proposed time of planting.

All planting approved as part of Condition 3 shall be carried out in the first planting season following the erection of the proposed fence or shed, whichever is the sooner; and any trees, shrubs or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species.

My site visit confirmed that the concrete base of the proposed shed is already in place. I have dealt with the appeal on that basis.

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

Occupying a corner plot at the junction of [address] with Eastlands, the appeal site comprises a detached dwelling on one of the main roads passing through Crowland. [address] features a variety of dwelling types and styles, many of which have garages set to their sides. Dwellings are generally set back from the roadside at similar distances, behind narrow grass verges. Many have open frontages or are set behind established hedgerows, low walls and/or fencing with frontage tree planting being somewhat prevalent. On the opposite side of the road, [address] with its parcels of open space and mature trees flanking the roadside, reinforces the verdant sense of spaciousness. These factors give the area a suburban character and appearance.

The appeal site boundary with [address] is formed by a well-maintained Laurel hedgerow, set behind a narrow strip of grassland. This grassland continues around the corner onto Eastlands where it widens before tapering down to a narrow strip again further north. The boundary along this side of Eastlands with those dwellings which back onto it, is formed by timber fencing with planting alongside it.

[name], at the curve in the road, the area of grass widens to form an open parcel of amenity space planted with shrubs. This is matched by a similar space opposite on the other side of the road. On the opposite side of the junction, the roadside boundary of No. [address] is formed by a mid-height brick wall which projects off the house towards Eastlands to enclose its curtilage, set behind a narrow strip of land.

The proposed shed would be positioned alongside No. 30 and would not project beyond the host dwelling towards [address]. As such, it would not be unduly prominent in the street scene. This arrangement would also be consistent with the character of the area, where many properties feature side garages and some with outbuildings set forward of the main elevation. With a ridge height of 2.5m, part of the roof would be visible above the proposed 1.8m fence. However, given that the eaves would sit below the fence height, the structure would not appear dominant. Views would therefore be intermittent rather than sustained, and the shed would not be visually intrusive.

The proposed fencing would be aligned to extend the garden and enclose the shed. While this would result in a substantial length of fencing, it would be comparable in height and extent to that already enclosing the site. The realignment would be more apparent in views from the street and would reduce the amount of open space along Eastlands. However, a residual strip of land between the fence and the footpath would remain, providing adequate separation between the built form and the public realm. This would be similar in width to the open strip on the opposite side of the road. Consequently, the proposal would not be out of keeping with the prevailing character and appearance of the area, where the mirrored presence of open space forms part of its character. It would therefore continue to provide a welcoming entrance to Eastlands without appearing oppressive or causing undue harm to its character or appearance.

In the absence of mitigation, the repositioned fence would present a stark and prominent feature owing to its expanse. However, hedgerow planting is proposed along the majority of its length, reflecting the existing situation. This would soften the visual impact of the development to an acceptable degree. The planting could be secured by condition and, once established, would mitigate the effects of the fencing over time. While there is some concern regarding the potential failure or disease of the hedgerow, its establishment and initial maintenance can be adequately controlled through appropriately worded conditions.

For these reasons, subject to landscaping, I am satisfied the proposal would not unduly harm the character and appearance of the area. It follows that I find no conflict with Policies 2, 3 or 30 of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011- 2036 (2019). Amongst other things, these policies expect development to have regard to the character and appearance of the area and ensure it is appropriate to the local area.

The Council has suggested a number of conditions. I have considered these in relation to the necessary tests set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), made changes to some, included additional conditions and not imposed all those suggested for the reasons set out.

As the development has already begun, the standard time condition for implementation is not necessary. In the interests of clarity, Condition 1 lists the approved plans.

Although the plans show the fence to be treated timber and the description of development references a timber shed, no details of the finishes, particularly of the shed roof, are annotated or listed on the application form. Therefore, I have imposed Condition 2 to ensure that the character and appearance of the area is adequately safeguarded.

Details of the proposed planting are secured by Condition 3. It is necessary for this to be agreed before the erection of the shed or fence in order to secure the mitigation in a timely manner and to safeguard the visual amenity of the area. For the same reasons, Condition 4 requires the planting to be undertaken during the first planting season following the erection of the shed or fence. This also requires the hedgerow to be maintained for the first five years to allow its establishment.

Three conditions are suggested which seek to remove classes of permitted development rights in respect of extensions, porches, outbuildings and means of enclosure. Paragraph 55 of the Framework makes clear that planning conditions should not be used to restrict such rights unless there is clear justification for doing so. I am not satisfied that the conditions are reasonable, proportionate or necessary, and no clear justification has been demonstrated for their imposition. Consequently, I have not imposed them.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.