Appeal 6006257

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The description of development on the application form marginally differs to the decision notice. However, I am satisfied that the original description accurately describes the appeal development and is therefore reflected above. In assessing the appeal scheme I have had regard to the earlier appeal decision, which considered a similar scheme under reference APP/N4205/D/25/3370007.

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

The appeal relates to a boundary to the rear of the existing dwelling. It faces [address] with a large proportion of the appeal site side of the road being lined with mature trees and hedging. The opposing side of the road consists of a mix of low boundary treatments with hedging and open driveways. Moreover, there is a sense of openness and a collective verdant character. These features together contribute to a semi-rural and leafy quality of the area, with a sense of openness on this quiet road.

The new fence and gates are a replacement of the hedging that previously lined the boundary with modest fencing behind it. The horizontal cladding of the new fencing in conjunction with its height emphasises its appearance and prominence on the streetscene. The lack of any fencing of a similar design and height in the locality highlights its incongruity in this context. Together it results in a prominent and alien structure detracting from the semi-rural and directly adjacent leafy green landscaping on this side of the road.

The appellant has suggested a condition to retain the boundary planting for the lifetime of the development and to a minimum height. However, even with good management, I am not convinced that it is either reasonable or enforceable to condition planting to a specific height and thickness to guarantee screening of the fence. The landscaping is unlikely to screen the fencing entirely and the appellant accepts it would take between two and three years to grow to the desired standard. Overall, while softening the visual impacts of the fence to some extent, the landscaping cannot be relied upon to sufficiently screen the harmful visual effects of the fence entirely or in perpetuity.

The appellant has also recommended that once the hedging has become well established that they would be satisfied with a condition to reduce the height of the fencing. However, it is not clear what the resulting fence would look like or how such a condition might be worded to address this. In any event, unacceptable visual harm would still occur until that time. As such, this would not meet the tests for conditions and would not negate against the harm already identified.

The matter of painting the fence a moss green would attempt to make the fence sit comfortably with the rest of the boundary. However, it would not sufficiently address the concerns raised in terms of the height, length, siting and scale of the fencing. Therefore, this would not change my recommendation.

The appeal scheme causes unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area. It conflicts with Policy JP-P1 of Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan, Core Policy OA5 and the [address] Extensions which together seek to ensure that development proposals are of a high-quality design and standard.

The appellant has advised that the fence has been erected in the interests of security and privacy. This is notwithstanding the change in ground levels and that this was an existing situation with the previous fencing. They also advised that there is no street lighting along this road and there has been an incident breaching their privacy prior to the erection of the fence. The appellant has queried what alternative measures could have been provided to satisfy the previous Inspector; however, it is not for the appeal process to advise what may be an acceptable solution. In the absence of robust evidence to explain the requirement of the fence at this height, and as it has not been proven that less harmful security solutions are possible, I cannot attach any more than limited weight to this personal benefit.

I am aware of other examples in the local vicinity on the opposite side of the road to the appeal site. The photographic examples of more severe boundary treatments are at unknown locations, but it is assumed they are near to the appeal site. However, I am unaware of the planning policies and circumstances at their time of approval or whether planning permission was sought. Resultantly, I could not attach any more than limited weight to their presence.

The appellant has raised their concerns with the Council’s handling of the application and the validation process. However, this is a matter for the Council’s internal processes rather than this appeal.

While the appellant disagrees with the findings of the earlier Inspector, there are not material considerations of sufficient weight which would now lead to a different conclusion. The appeal scheme does not adequately address that Inspector’s concerns.

For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme would not comply with the development plan and I have been given no other compelling reason, taking into account other material considerations advanced, to make a decision other than in accordance with it. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.