Appeal 6006024

The appeal is dismissed.

The planning application form indicates that the development has already taken place and I was able to view the fence at the time of my visit.

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 where properties side onto highways. This openness gives coherence to the character of the area that is a visually attractive quality of the environs within the locality. The appellant contends the that area does not exhibit a consistent open plan character and that those open parts of the locality are poorly defined or ill-maintained. However, on my observations I disagree with the appellant on these points. The open parts of the locality are not so poorly defined or ill-maintained such that the discernibility of the open plan nature of the area has been diminished or lost. Moreover, the openness provides distinctiveness to both the character and appearance of the area.

The fence is of solid appearance and projects into the open verge to the side of the property. Given its height it is prominently visible within the street scene. It serves to enclose a considerable area of the grass verge to the side of the dwelling that is within the appellant’s ownership. This visually encloses this space and creates a feature that is out of keeping with the prevailing open character and appearance of the area. Consequently, the development is harmful for this reason, despite a small strip of grass verge being retained between the new side fence and the highway.

The rear boundary has previous been enclosed and although the replacement fence appears to be taller than the previous boundary, it does not substantially alter the character or appearance of the street scene at the rear of the property.

A fence has been erected alongside a neighbour’s property at [address]. That fence sides onto a parking area. The appeal site is much more visually open whereby the visual harm arising from the development is more pronounced within the locality. The existence of the fence at [address] offers little weight in favour of the development.

I have been referred to other examples where fences have been erected in the wider area, photographs of which have been provided. Most of those examples are not local to the appeal site and, therefore, the considerations of those developments would be different to that of this site. Those examples do not offer weight in favour of the development.

My attention has also been drawn to a planning permission for a dwelling that has been erected on an area of open space at a different location at [address]. Other open spaces highlighted have either been planted altering the open character of the site or surfaced to provide parking. Photographs of these sites have been provided. However, I have not been provided the full details of the planning permission to consider what similarity that development would have to open space to that of the appeal site. The other sites highlighted do not fully enclose the land at the side of the dwellings such that would prevent visibility of those open areas, which is the case here. Therefore, they are not directly comparable to the development that is before me. I, therefore, give these examples little weight in favour of the development.

I acknowledge that the development would improve privacy for the appellant by reducing observation of the private rear garden and that the fence would increase security, safety and land management by preventing fly-tipping, littering and dog fouling. The existing boundary wall was in poor and unsafe condition. Pictures of the wall have been provided. The replacement boundary fence has addressed this maintenance issue. In addition, highway visibility splays would be unaffected and I note that [name] have not raised an objection to the development. Furthermore, no objections have been raised from existing neighbouring occupiers. Whilst these are all merits of the 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 Policy D10a of the [name], saved Policy UHT1 of the Eastbourne Borough Plan and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). These policies seek, amongst other matters, development to harmonise with the appearance and character of the local environment, to respect local distinctiveness and to be of high-quality design.

The Council has raised concern within its officer report regarding the potential harm to adjacent occupiers’ residential amenity, though this matter is not specifically referred to in its reason for refusal. Based upon the evidence before me, I cannot conclude that the living conditions for existing neighbouring occupiers would be substantially compromised as a result of the development.

It is suggested that the development would benefit from permitted development rights under Schedule 2, Part 2, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) as the fence is set back from the highway. However, I have not been provided with any substantive evidence that would support this assertion. Therefore, this offers little weight in favour of the proposal.

The Council has referred to paragraph 204 of the Framework in its decision notice. However, that paragraph deals with development within conservation areas, which is not the case here. I therefore have not taken this paragraph into consideration as it is not relevant to this case.

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