Appeal 6006377

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, which is taken from the application form, does not refer to the retrospective nature of the fence. It is clear from the main parties’ cases and my site visit that this is so. The Council dealt with the proposal on the basis that the height of the fence is 1.8 metres as per the submitted plans and so shall I.

The main issues are a) whether or not the fencing is inappropriate development in the Green Belt; its effect on b) the openness of the Green Belt; c) the character and appearance of the area; and d) highway safety; and e) whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the appeal scheme.

The National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) sets out, amongst other things, that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless it falls within a given set of exceptions. Policy GB1 of the Warrington Local Plan 2023 (LP) reflects the stance of the Framework in this regard. Section 55 of the 1990 Planning Act defines development as the carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on over or under land. Section 336 then refers to a building as including any structure or erection. The fence in the case of the appeal scheme can therefore be development and a building for Green Belt purposes. In this respect, the fence does not fall within any of the exceptions listed in paragraphs 154 or 155 of the Framework. This is a closed list. I can therefore make no conclusion other than the fence being inappropriate development in the Green Belt. This would conflict with both the Framework and Policy GB1 in how they define such.

Openness is an essential characteristic of the Green Belt and is capable of having both spatial and visual aspects. The appeal scheme replaces a low level fence, which had provided a degree of visual permeability that contributed to a rural character. In contrast, the new fencing, although not substantially increasing land take, is of a considerable height and extends along a prominent street frontage. It forms a solid and imposing enclosure, creating a more contained domestic curtilage that significantly reduces the spatial openness of the Green Belt.

Its prominent siting close to the edge of the carriageway also diminishes the visual openness of the Green Belt and increases its visibility along [site address] . The fence appears as a solid, continuous form of development, interrupting views into the front garden, which would otherwise contribute to the perceived openness of the surrounding area. Consequently, the appeal scheme significantly limits visual permeability and reinforces the impression of a private, self-contained residential compound. This results in a clear loss of both spatial and visual openness, causing harm to the Green Belt accordingly. This is in addition to that arising from the development’s inappropriateness and further conflicting with the aims of the aforementioned policy situations.

The appeal site occupies a prominent corner plot that lies within a small cluster of dwellings surrounded by a wider agricultural landscape. Boundary treatments along the lanes primarily comprise planting, hedgerows and trees, with minimal or low level structures such as post and rail fencing, walls and traffic barriers. Whilst some established tall timber fencing and walls exist in the vicinity, these are generally set back from the highway. These features influence the area’s rural character, creating a sense of space and permeability which positively contributes to the open countryside setting.

The appeal site is not within a Conservation Area and there are no listed buildings nearby. Timber is also a material commonly used in rural contexts. Nonetheless, the fence’s conspicuous siting, considerable height, solid and bright appearance from the light-coloured panels, and extensive length, combine to create a visually dominant, enclosing and discordant feature.

Some internal planting is visible behind the fence and may, over time, help to soften its appearance. However, at present they provide minimal screening and, even if they mature, they would not mitigate the sense of solid enclosure imparted by the fence, which would remain prominent in the foreground. It also does not accord with section 2.6.7 of the House Extensions Supplementary Planning Document 2021, which states that solid fences over one metre in height will not usually be acceptable in front of a house.

A single storey building lies adjacent the appeal site, with its side elevation forming a boundary wall to [site address] . However, this structure is not directly comparable to the appeal scheme, as it relates to the elevation of an outbuilding and not a fence. It is more concentrated in its land take. I also saw during my site visit, extensive lengths of new timber fencing serving ‘Burtonwood Park’ on [address]. The Council has described this as an unauthorised traveller site, and I have no information before me as to whether these fences have received planning permission. Whether they do or do not, this would not lessen the identified harm caused by the appeal scheme in regard to this or the other main issues.

For these reasons, the development results in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area. It is contrary to Policy DC6 of the LP which, amongst other things, seeks to ensure that good design is at the core of all development proposals.

The appeal site is accessed from [site address] via a shared gravel driveway, flanked by a detached building on one side and the appeal site’s fence on the other, which curves around the site. The access connects directly to the road, with no intervening footways. The site lies adjacent a sharp bend where [address] meets [site address] , with a dip in the road beyond the detached building on the latter. Both lanes are well trafficked, providing a connection between Burtonwood and the M62 motorway.

The fence does not alter the shared driveway or increase traffic movements, and drivers may have already needed to edge forward to improve visibility. However, due to its close siting to the highway edge, height and solid design, it introduces an obstruction that exacerbates existing visibility constraints at the driveway exit. It further restricts visibility of approaching traffic from [address] for drivers and pedestrians emerging from the access, requiring vehicles to encroach further onto the highway. This increases the risk of conflict with pedestrians, cyclists and other vehicles and makes it difficult to safely assess oncoming traffic. This risk is compounded by the sharp bend, and the already restricted sightlines caused by the detached building to the other side of the access. The harm affects not only the occupiers of the appeal site but all other users of the shared driveway. Poor visibility being typical of rural accesses is not a reason to justify the appeal scheme.

The fence also restricts forward visibility for drivers travelling in both directions along [site address] and [address]. Combined with the sharp bend and dip in the road, views of oncoming traffic, cyclists and pedestrians, and those emerging from the shared driveway, are constrained. This reduces the driver’s ability to perceive and thus react to hazards, increasing the risk of collision. Whilst the bend may encourage lower speeds, vehicles remain in motion and the risk still persists. The impact on pedestrians is notably concerning given the absence of footways, requiring them to walk and be exposed on the road, where they may not be readily visible. Larger vehicles negotiating the bend are also likely to adopt a more central position, further increasing the potential for conflict. Whilst no collision data is provided, the absence of recorded incidents does not indicate an absence of harm.

Consequently, the appeal scheme results in harm to highway safety and is contrary to Policy ENV8 of the LP. This policy requires, amongst other things, development proposals to consider the effect and timing of traffic movement to, from and within the site including impacts on highway safety.

The fence is required for privacy, security, and reducing opportunities for theft and anti-social behaviour. A previous fence was subject to repeated damage and theft and allowed litter to accumulate in the brook. A police report has been provided. The fence also helps to reduce lights from cars shining into homes.

However, there is no sufficiently conclusive evidence to demonstrate that the appellant’s needs and the blocking of car lights cannot be met through alternative measures, such as use of surveillance equipment, additional planting or curtains, which might have a lesser impact than the appeal scheme. I remain to be convinced that the development is the only way to achieve the outcomes the appellant desires. Additionally, whilst the fence may assist as a deterrence, they do not eradicate the possibility of any future damage or theft.

The representations of support received would not overcome the identified harm, for the above reasons. The fence helping to reduce noise and pollution from passing vehicles is also unsubstantiated, with no technical documents provided to support this.

The appeal scheme constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It also results in a reduction in openness, both spatially and visually. In accordance with the Framework, I give substantial weight to the associated Green Belt harm. There is also harm to the character and appearance of the area and upon highway safety. These are additional harms to which I also assign substantial weight given they are both long lasting and potentially impactful to life respectively.

Taken together, the other considerations put forward carry, at most, moderate weight. It follows therefore that they would be insufficient to clearly outweigh the harms in this case. Accordingly, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist. The proposal therefore conflicts with the aims of the development plan as I have set them out above and there are no other material considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, that indicate a decision other than in accordance therewith. 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.