Appeal 6006202

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development was agreed to be amended at the application stage to read, Erection of boundary fence on existing wall 2.2m in height (retrospective). The Council’s decision notice refers to a height of 2.5m and whilst I noted at my site visit that the height does vary along the line of the fence, particularly within [address], I have used the agreed description of development in the header above.

The application forms confirm that the development had been completed prior to the submission of the application. The application is therefore seeking permission for works already carried out under Section 73A of The Town and Country Planning Act 1990, namely the erection of boundary fence on existing wall 2.2m in height.

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

The appeal property is a detached dwelling fronting [address] and with a side return to [address] and with access off [address] and within a mixed residential area, comprising houses and flats. Prior to the development the subject of this appeal, there was an existing brick wall around the frontage to the two roads with dense tree and hedge planting within the site.

The brick wall has been retained and following the cutting back of some of the vegetation, a close boarded fence has been erected on top of the wall, which provides a total height of some 2.2m with some variations. The development undertaken includes a front gate.

Reflecting the varied built development within the local area, there are a mix of boundary treatments, but primarily including brick walls, hedges and metal fencing. Overall, there is a distinctive verdant character and appearance to the local area through planting along boundaries and within front gardens. Some of the taller boundaries are formed by metal fences which provide views through to the planting behind. Notwithstanding the retention and incorporation of some of the existing planting within the site along both road frontages, the addition of the fencing to the existing creates a harsh and visually intrusive feature to the street scene. It results in a very hard edge in a prominent corner location which detracts from the distinctive verdant character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The Appellant has drawn my attention to a similar boundary treatment which already exists at No [address]. However, the Council, in its delegated officer’s report, has advised that this boundary treatment does not appear to be lawful and does not benefit from planning permission. The presence of the fence at No [address] does not therefore persuade me to a different view. Furthermore, the corner siting of the appeal property renders the fence as erected visually over prominent both in views along [address] as well as along [address]. I appreciate that over time the fence might weather down but this would not overcome the harm I have identified from its overall length and height.

I therefore conclude that the development does result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the local area. This conflicts with Policies SDP1, SDP7 and SDP9 of the City of Southampton Local Plan Review (2015), Policy CS13 of the adopted Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document (as amended) (2015) and the National Planning Policy Framework and in particular Section 12, all of which, amongst other matters, seek a high quality of development which respects the local context.

I have taken into account the reasons for erecting the fence and appreciate that the fence provides a good level of security and privacy to the garden area of the appeal property. However, these considerations do not outweigh the significant harm that I have identified, in the particular circumstances of this case.

Contrary to the views of the Appellant, the information provided by the Council confirms that there are trees along the boundary that are protected by The Southampton (Bannister’s Park (No2) Tree Preservation Order 1974. However, the Council’s tree officer raised no issues in this regard, and I have no reason to take a different view. Although not forming part of the reason for refusal, the Council’s Highway Officer raised an objection and sought further information in respect of visibility splays. [name] am dismissing the appeal, I do not need to address this matter further.

For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.