Replacement of the bushes at the side of the property with a fence and pillars to create privacy

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 25 September 2017 by I Radcliffe BSc(Hons) MRTPI MCIEH DMS an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 13th October 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/R0660/D/17/3178195 1 Burns Close, Rode Heath, Stoke-on-Trent ST7 3UD  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 Tim Whittaker against the decision of Cheshire East Council.  The application Ref 17/1808C, dated 3 April 2017, was refused by notice dated 1 June 2017.  The development proposed is replacement of the bushes at the side of the property with a fence and pillars to create privacy. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural matter 2. Since the application was determined by the Council the Cheshire East Local Plan (CELP) has been adopted. The Council has confirmed that policy GR2 of the Congleton Borough Local Plan, cited in the Council’s decision notice, no longer forms part of the development plan and has been replaced by policy SE 1 of the CELP. Accordingly, I have determined the appeal on this basis. In reaching my decision, I have taken into account the comments received from the parties regarding whether the proposed development complies with policy SE 1. Main Issue 3. The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 4. The fence and brick pillars for which permission is sought have already been constructed. 5. The appeal property is located within a relatively recently built housing estate that is characterised by detached houses and its open layout. Houses, set back behind front gardens, line Keats Drive which is the main access road through the estate. On corner plots, such as 1 Burns Close, it is a distinctive feature that both the front and side gardens are open. Where gardens to the side have been enclosed fencing is set back from the side boundary of the plot to retain an open grass verge. These features give the estate its distinctive, spacious layout and achieve an attractive balance between built development and open soft landscaping. In design terms, the result is a high quality suburban environment. Appeal Decision APP/R0660/D/17/3178195 2 6. The submitted drawing and aerial photograph show that before the fence that is the subject of this appeal was built, in keeping with the pattern of development that I have described, the front and side garden of the appeal property was open with a fence between the rear corner of the house and garage set well back from the side boundary of the plot. As a result, the openness of the side garden and set back of the fence formed part of the spacious attractive suburban layout of the estate. 7. In contrast, the fence that has been built is level with the front elevation of the house, extends across the width of the side garden and follows the side boundary along the back edge of the pavement. As a consequence, it closes off views of the side garden, encloses Keats Drive and results in a far more urban environment that is at odds with the pattern of development that characterises the area. The dimensions and appearance of the fencing panels and brick built piers are in keeping with other boundary treatments in the area. Nevertheless, this does not overcome the harm that I have described. 8. For the reasons given above, I therefore conclude that the fence and pillars unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to policy SE 1 of the CELP. This policy requires the protection of the character and appearance of a locality through high quality design that respects local design features. The justified reasoning to this policy notes the importance of boundary treatments in terms of successful design. Policy SE 1 postdates the publication of the National Planning Policy Framework and is consistent with it in that it seeks high quality design. 9. For the occupiers of No 1 the fence provides privacy to a greater proportion of the garden. However, given that the rear garden screened by the original fence is of a reasonable size, this consideration does not outweigh the harm caused to the character and appearance of the area. 10. I recognise that the builder who constructed the fence advised the appellant that planning permission was not required, and that the planning officer was supportive of granting permission for the development. Nevertheless, whilst the appellant was wrongly advised and the planning officer’s comments would have raised expectations that planning permission would be granted by the Council, this does not warrant granting permission for a development that has a significant adverse effect on the street scene. 11. Reference has been made to paragraph 65 of the Framework. It supports granting permission for buildings that promote high levels of sustainability where there are concerns about incompatibility with an existing townscape, if these concerns have been mitigated by good design. However, a fence does not promote high levels of sustainability and, in terms of design, the extent of the fence is harming the street scene. Paragraph 65 therefore does not provide support for the appeal. 12. For the reasons set out above, I conclude the appeal should be dismissed. In reaching this decision I have taken into account the views of local residents, including the petition in support of the development. Ian Radcliffe Inspector