Appeal 6005943

The appeal is dismissed.

A fence and two gates have been constructed at the appeal site. However, what has been built does not reflect the submitted plans (Q21276-PLANNING.02 [name] and L-21276 [name]) in that the fence is indicated on the block plan as extending further along the roadside towards [site address] and one set of gates is not as indicated on the “proposed gate and fence” plan. Nevertheless, I have determined the appeal on the basis of the proposed development, as shown on the plans as submitted, and the description of development.

I am also considering another appeal1 by the same appellant which is an appeal against the grant of planning permission subject to conditions. That appeal is the subject of a separate decision.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area, including the Arden Special Landscape Area.

The appeal site comprises the roadside boundary of an area of land providing paddocks and buildings for horses. It lies within an area of open countryside, within the Arden Special Landscape Area, and is outside of the settlement of [site address] . The wider area includes residential properties, including the host dwelling [site address] , other farms, and equestrian uses. The roadside boundaries are predominantly well-established hedges with some post and rail fences and small sections of close boarded fences immediately next to residential properties.

From the evidence before me the roadside boundary to the appeal site was previously hedge, post and rail fence, and a short section of close boarded fence. 1 6005947 The hedges and post and rail fence were characteristic of the rural area around the appeal site. Although there was already some close boarded fencing this was a much shorter section. The other sections of close boarded fencing, at other properties in the area, to which the appellant has drawn my attention, are also short sections of one or two panels. The presence of existing close boarded fencing is not a defining characteristic of the area.

The appeal proposal would be for a long section of close boarded fence and two gates. Although high quality fencing has been installed, which would match the appearance of the recently approved stables, the height and appearance of the fence and gates would be overly domestic, urban, and defensive. One of the proposed gates, albeit similar to a five-bar gate, would be taller and more solid in form than the standard rural five-bar gate. Moreover, I have not been provided with any compelling evidence that close boarded fencing is a typical feature at equestrian holdings in rural areas.

The fence and gates proposed would be visually prominent from the road passing the appeal site, would not respect the rural appearance of the area, and would not minimise the effect on the character of the local landscape or protect the Special Landscape Area, as is required by the Stratford-on-Avon District Core Strategy 2011 to 2031 (the CS).

Furthermore, the proposal would conflict with the advice in the Stratford-on-Avon District Council Development Requirements SPD. Although that document is guidance rather than policy it seeks to provide advice on what forms of development would be suitable. The SPD advises that, where a boundary interfaces with the open countryside, the most likely acceptable treatment would be indigenous hedging. Furthermore, it also seeks to resist close boarded timber fencing where the boundaries are onto the public realm, irrespective of whether the site is in the open countryside.

The presence of other, shorter, sections of close boarded fences in the area would not justify the length or height of the appeal proposal or justify the harm to the character and appearance of the area. The appellant has suggested planting trees or climbing plants along the fence. However, I am not convinced that there is space within the appellant's ownership, between the fence and the highway verge, to plant any landscaping, or sufficient space that any planting carried out would survive and grow sufficiently, especially where the sections of fence are close to the road. It would, therefore, not be possible to secure mitigation planting by condition. The suggestion to paint the fence in a dark colour would also not sufficiently mitigate the harm. Overall, there is no means to mitigate the effect on the character and appearance of the area.

Furthermore, although I note the appellant has suffered from a security incident in the past, the provision of close boarded fences along the roadside is not the only means to secure the stables and paddocks. That the site will soon have a larger stable block was a decision the appellant made without having the benefit of permission for the fence, it is not justification for the fence. The development is not fully justified, neither would it offer significant benefits to the local area, as required by Policy AS.10 of the CS.

I acknowledge the letters of support received both during the planning application process and at appeal. However, I have found that the appeal proposal is substantially different to the other close boarded fences and gates in the area and that it would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. Moreover, I am not convinced that the security of the stables and paddocks is an overriding reason to allow the harm that would be caused.

That the appeal proposal would not be harmful to highway safety, biodiversity, or the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, are neutral matters that would not weigh in favour of the development.

For the above reasons, I find that the proposal would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area, including the Arden Special Landscape Area. It would, therefore, be contrary to [name].10, CS.5, CS.9 and CS.12 of the CS. Collectively these policies seek to minimise the impact on the character of the local landscape, require development to incorporate measures to enhance and restore the landscape character of the locality, improve the quality of the public realm, reflect the character of the locality, and protect the high landscape quality of the Special Landscape Areas.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.