Appeal 6008354

The appeal is dismissed.

In their appeal statement the appellant has stated their willingness to reduce the height of part of the fencing and to introduce new soft panting, although few details are given. As this could materially alter the proposal, I am unable to take it into consideration in the determination of this appeal. This is because such changes would first need to be assessed by the council and be subject to public consultation. For this reason, I confirm that this decision is based solely on the scheme refused by the council.

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

Bishops Green comprises an open plan development made up of modern detached and attached houses arranged around several small cul-de-sacs. The dwellings are set back from the street scene behind modest sized front gardens that are either open or enclosed by hedges and/or low walls. The space created by the open gardens together with the soft planting within the gardens and verges contribute to the spacious, open and visually soft suburban character and appearance of Bishops Green.

There is a tall fence fronting Bishops Green, along part of the side boundary to [address]. However, it is set in from the road junction; there is a small verge to the front of it; and there is soft planting on either side of this fence. The tall fence to the front of 44 Bishops Green is similarly set in from the road junction and partially obscured and visually softened by the adjacent hedge. Both fences are not as long as the proposed fence and only affect one road boundary.

[address] and [address] this open plan appearance continues. Whilst there are occasional tall walls and fences adjacent to side and rear boundaries that face the highway, they are typically set behind soft planted strips and/or there are verges in the highway to the front of them. This softens their appearance within the street scene. Where there is no planting to the front and/or side of fences, they appear stark and provide a harsh frontage to the highway. [name] there is a proliferation of tall fences facing the highway. Whilst most of the walls and fences benefit from being located to the rear of wide verges, collectively they have had an enclosing and urbanising impact on the street scene.

Rather than set a precedent, these existing fences serve to highlight the need to assess each proposal on its individual merits and in accordance with the prevailing planning policies.

Together amongst other things policies SP1 and SP6 of the Ashford Local Plan 2030 (ALP) and paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (The Framework), promote high quality design. Development should respect and respond to the character, distinctiveness and sense of place.

The appeal site occupies a prominent position within the street scene, adjacent to a junction within [name]. The proposed fence is clearly visible from this junction as well as from the junction with [address]. Within these views the proposed fence is prominent within the street scene, where due to its combined siting, height, length and absence of soft landscaping it is visually hard and has an enclosing and urbanising impact.

Due to the proposed fence’s siting close to the back edge of the pavement there would be little opportunity to introduce a soft landscaping scheme that would effectively soften the fence’s harsh visual impact. This is in contrast to the mature landscaping around the opposite side of the junction, to the front/side of 43 Bishops Green. Finally, the stark appearance of the proposed fence is exacerbated by the fact that the fencing screens and creates a dead frontage at the entrance to the property.

Conversely, from the road junction to the north of the appeal site the fence is partially screened by the deep planted verge adjacent to the junction and the fence running along the front boundary of the appeal site is not visible in this view. As a consequence, from this part of the street scene the proposed fence is reasonably well assimilated into the street scene.

However, this does not outweigh the harm caused to the street scene identified in paragraphs 9 and 10 above. This harm also outweighs the security and privacy benefits for the appellant and their family that results from the proposed fence. Due to the fundamental changes that would be required to satisfactorily address this harm, it is not a matter that could be appropriately addressed through the imposition of conditions.

I conclude that the proposed fence unacceptably harms the character and appearance of the street scene. Accordingly, it conflicts with [name] SP1 & SP6 and paragraph 135 of the Framework.