Replacement of existing post and rail fencing with 1.4metre high feather edge board fencing

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 24 October 2017 by Elizabeth Pleasant DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 14 November 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/F1040/D/17/3178603 5 Talbot Meadows, Hilton, Derby DE65 5JS  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 Miss Masauda Akhtar against the decision of South Derbyshire District Council.  The application Ref 9/2017/0205, dated 6 January 2017, was refused by a notice dated 22 May 2017.  The development proposed is the replacement of existing post and rail fencing with 1.4metre high feather edge board fencing. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the replacement of existing post and rail fencing with 1.4metre high feather edge board fencing at 5 Talbot Meadows, Hilton, Derby DE65 5JS in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 9/2017/0205, dated 6 January 2017, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Plot 5, Estate Layout, Scale 1:500 Rev B dated 18.03.2016; and Proposal at 5 Talbot Meadows, Hilton comprising Photographs illustrating Point A to Point B with feather edge board fencing. Procedural Matter 2. The description of development set out above is altered slightly from that on the application form through the removal of narrative text not related to the development itself. Main Issue 3. The main issue in this case is the effect on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 4. The appeal site occupies a prominent position on the roundabout junction of Derby Road and the A5132. It forms part of a small development of new Appeal Decision APP/F1040/D/17/3178603 2 detached properties centred on a small cul-de-sac which takes its access from Derby Road. 5. The existing boundary treatment between this small development and the neighbouring highways varies considerably in its overall design and height. The development facing towards Derby Road is defined by black metal railings, whilst the boundary adjacent to the junction radii of Derby Road, and enclosing the side garden of No 4 Talbot Meadows, is a brick wall with supporting brick piers and feather edge boarding to a height of approximately 1.8metres(m). This wall then terminates, and the rear boundary of Nos. 4 and 5 Talbot Meadows is delineated by a 1.2m high open timber post and rail fence. It is a section of this timber fence which the appellant is seeking to replace with 1.4m high feather edge boarding. 6. I recognise that the existing low, open post and rail fencing enables the full elevations of Nos. 4 and 5 to be revealed, and provide a street frontage to the roundabout. However, it is understandable that the occupiers of these properties wish to provide a safe and secure living environment by enclosing what in reality is the back of their houses. Moreover, as I have described in the paragraph above, the existing boundary treatment along the highway is mixed in character and there is no consistency in its design and appearance. I am not therefore convinced that the proposed boarding, which would match that used as part of the means of enclosure to this property’s side garden area, would appear incongruous. Nor would it have a significantly harmful effect on the overall character and appearance of the area. 7. I conclude that the appeal proposal would not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would not therefore conflict with the development plan, including Policy BNE1 of the adopted South Derbyshire Local Plan, Part 1, 2016 or emerging Policy H27 of the South Derbyshire Local Plan Part 2, which together with the Council’s adopted Housing Design and Layout Supplementary Planning Guidance, seek to ensure that new development, including boundary treatments, protect the character of the area and are visually attractive and contribute to achieving continuity and enclosure within the street scene. Conclusion 8. For the reasons given above and taking into account all other matters raised, I conclude that subject to a condition that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans, as this provides certainty, the appeal should be allowed. Elizabeth Pleasant INSPECTOR