Retrospective planning application to amend and alter boundary treatments to the front elevation of the property: Remove dilapidated ship -lap fence and gate with trellis and bushes to be replaced with new timber enclosure of a similar height

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 27th November 2017 by Alison Roland BSc DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 15 December 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/W4705/D/17/3182509 25 Park Road, Thackley, Bradford, BD10 0RR.  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 Sanderson against the decision of Bradford Metropolitan District Council.  The application Ref: 17/02099/HOU, dated 31 March 2017, was refused by notice dated 26 May 2017.  The development proposed is retrospective planning application to amend and alter boundary treatments to the front elevation of the property: Remove dilapidated ship -lap fence and gate with trellis and bushes to be replaced with new timber enclosure of a similar height. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue in this appeal is the implications of the proposal for the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. The fence is already in situ and has been erected around the perimeter of the front garden. It comprises narrow horizontal strips of timber set slightly spaced apart, which lend it a contemporary appearance. 4. Because of its height and particularly its height relative to the walls of the adjoining houses to either side, it has a strident appearance and noticeably draws the eye. Whilst it has doubtless been built to a high standard, the fact is that it simply does not integrate at all well with the host property and wider street scene of which it forms part. 5. The effect is exacerbated due to the fact it has been built level to the interior garden space and not in line with the slope of the land, which lends it an incongruent appearance. It is especially so since most front boundary treatments in the area comprise low to moderate height stone walls and there is not generally a strong sense of enclosure to the front of properties. In this context the fence appears as an anomaly. Appeal Decision APP/W4705/D/17/3182509 2 6. I appreciate a fence existed in a similar position previously, but it appears to have been less intrusive than that which is the subject of this appeal and at least part of the boundary appears to have been formed from shrubbery and/or a hedge, which had a softer appearance. I also saw two examples of fences exceeding a metre in height along Park Road, including one behind a drystone wall to the South West and one next to the used car premises across the opposite side of the road. However, the latter is not so prominent as it does not run along the road frontage, whilst the former is itself something of a departure from the generally low front boundary walls in the area and not an appropriate benchmark to follow. 7. I also appreciate that there were no objections to the planning application, but that does not render the proposal acceptable on its planning merits. Neither do I consider that painting or staining the fence would remedy the harm I have identified. Whilst I have no doubt that the enclosure the fence affords the front garden renders it a safe area for the appellant’s children to play, I consider the harm identified would outweigh the benefit in this regard. 8. For these reasons, I conclude on the main issue that the proposal would fail to satisfactorily integrate with the host property and wider character and appearance of the locality. This would bring it into conflict with Policies UR3 and D1 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan for the Bradford District (2005) and the Local Development Framework for Bradford Householder Supplementary Planning Document (2012). These seek to ensure that development is well related to the existing character of the locality in terms of its design and height, that boundary treatments normally match the height and type of properties on either side and do not have an adverse effect on the surrounding environment. ALISON ROLAND INSPECTOR