Appeal 6008770

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development on the application forms contains information relating to the reasons for the application. [name] have taken all this information into account in my assessment it is only necessary to record the development for which planning permission is required in the header above. The description also refers to a [address] boarded fence whereas the plans and the decision notice refer to a 1.8m timber panel fence. This description is also used by the Appellant at the appeal stage. I have therefore used the description of development, including its height, as recorded on the decision notice in the header above.

The application forms confirm that the development had been completed prior to the application being submitted. I have therefore assessed the application as seeking permission for works already carried out under Section 73A of The Town and Country Planning Act 1990, namely the erection of 1.8 m high timber panel fence to front and rear of the property.

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 on the west side of [address], the A33, which is a busy four lane road and key route into the City of Southampton from the north and the M3. [address] and the side roads, there is a predominance of residential dwellings, including a mix of apartment blocks and individual dwellings, generally set back from the road frontage. Although frontage treatments vary and there are examples of fences inter-mixed with mature trees and hedges, there is, overall, a distinctive verdant character and appearance to this main approach into the City of Southampton.

The fence that has been erected to the [address] frontage is 1.8 m in height either side of the vehicular access point against the back edge of the footway, and at the rear 1.8m in height set behind a sloping verge with mature trees.

The information before me, primarily from the Officer’s delegated report, advises that there had been a fence along the boundary to [address] of approximately 1m in height together with extensive planting.

The Council has referred me to a number of policies, all of which seek to protect the local character and appearance of the area and contribute to the greening of the city. Policy NE6 of the Council’s Local Plan Review (2015) (LPR) is specific to restricting development which would adversely affect the landscape character of the northern approach to the city along three named roads, including [address]. The supporting text to that policy states that the northern approach to the city along [address] is particularly attractive and its wooded character is worthy of protection and seeks to resist damage to this character through the loss of trees, shrubs, hedgerows and grassed areas. The Bassett Neighbourhood Plan (2016) (NP) and in particular Policy BAS9 and its supporting text also seeks to protect trees and grass verges to maintain the verdant character of the northern approach to the city.

The effect of the fence as erected, particularly in terms of its siting and height, is to create a harsh and solid edge to the [address] frontage. This contrasts with the information before me regarding the previous boundary arrangement of a lower fence and more extensive planting. [name] have taken into account that there are other fences in the immediate vicinity as well as further along [address], the mature trees, planting and hedging found along boundaries on both sides of the road all make a significant contribution to the distinctive and verdant character and appearance of [address] comprises. The fence as erected, particularly given its height and siting, presents a harsh urban edge and detracts from this verdant character and appearance of the local area.

Furthermore, I am advised by the Council that that many of the fences that exist in the vicinity are historic and do not appear to benefit from planning permission but are now immune from planning control by the passage of time. The Council has further confirmed that the fence and gate for the neighbouring property at [address] does not appear to benefit from planning permission. The presence of these other fences does not therefore persuade me to a different view.

I have taken into account the further proposals put forward by the Appellant for treatment of the fence along the [address] frontage and for planting behind the fence. However, I do not consider that these would overcome the harm I have found from the height and position of the fence as erected along the back edge of the footpath.

I therefore conclude that fence along the [address] frontage does harm the verdant character and appearance of the local area. This conflicts with [name] 9, SDP 12 and NE6 of the LPR, [name] 4 and BAS 9 of the NP and Policy CS13 of the adopted Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document (as amended 2015) and the guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework, all of which amongst other matters seek a high quality of design which respects the local context.

I appreciate that the fence contributes to security and privacy of the dwelling and the garden area of the appeal property. However, these considerations do not outweigh the harm that I have identified.

The Council’s reason for refusal and consideration within its Officer’s delegated report appears to be specific to the fence that has been erected along the [address] frontage. The rear fence is set behind a sloping verge with a group of mature trees that are protected under The Southampton (Pinewood) Tree Preservation Order 2006 (TPO), within the small residential cul de sac of Pinewood, leading off [address]. There is no objection from the Council’s Tree Officer in respect of the development undertaken. Given the set back of the fence within the cul de sac together with the verge and mature trees in front I am satisfied that the fence would not detract from the attractive and verdant character and appearance of the local area. This finding does not override the harm I have concluded in respect of the fence erected along the [address] frontage.

Although not forming part of the reason for refusal, the Council’s Highway Officer sought further details on visibility splays. However, as I 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, including in representations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.