1.8m high feather board fence to follow existing boundary line around side of property. Fence to taper down to meet existing brick wall. Improvement required to stop consistent litter from pedestrian traffic. This fence will be maintained to a high standard and treated annually to meet appearance required in this location. The materials used will be consistent with the fence already erected to the opposite side of the garage

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 January 2018 by L Fleming BSc (Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 11 January 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/K0235/D/17/3175158 8 Melrose Drive, Elstow MK42 9FH  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr Danny Rayner against the decision of Bedford Borough Council.  The application Ref 16/03019/S73A, dated 11 October 2016, was refused by notice dated 2 May 2017.  The development is 1.8m high feather board fence to follow existing boundary line around side of property. Fence to taper down to meet existing brick wall. Improvement required to stop consistent litter from pedestrian traffic. This fence will be maintained to a high standard and treated annually to meet appearance required in this location. The materials used will be consistent with the fence already erected to the opposite side of the garage. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. At the time of my site visit the development had been completed. I have determined the appeal accordingly. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 4. The appeal property is a detached dwelling located in a modern residential area characterised by mainly informally arranged detached properties with landscaped areas and planting. Thus the residential area has an informal and verdant character and appearance. 5. The fence is positioned between a detached garage and the footway and extends along the road frontage to a low brick wall. I acknowledge the planting in the narrow space between the fence and the footway. I also note the planting behind the low brick wall. 6. However, this does not screen the development and would take some time to be become effective as such. In any event when established it would not screen the fence when viewed from the east. Appeal Decision APP/K0235/D/17/3175158 2 7. Landscaped areas between the buildings and the footway are common features of the estate which provide visual relief and soften the visual impact of the buildings and I observed no evidence of significant litter on any other such areas on the estate. In contrast fences so close to the edge of the footway are not a common feature of the area and whilst there are a number of tall brick walls these are constructed from materials and incorporate details which match the dwellings in the area. 8. Thus, even though the fence appears in good order and would be well maintained I find it is an incongruous feature of the street scene which erodes and therefore harms the verdant character and appearance of the area. 9. For these reasons, the development is in conflict with the development plan, specifically saved Policies BE29 and BE30 of the Bedford Borough Local Plan (2002) and Policy CP21 of the Bedford Core Strategy and Rural Issues Plan (2008). These policies taken together, seek to achieve good design and ensure that new development positively responds to the character of an area. Other Matter 10. I have attached limited weight to the concerns with regard to creating a precedent as each case should be considered on its merits. Conclusion 11. For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. L Fleming INSPECTOR