Replacement of a fence

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15 December 2017 by A Jordan BA Hons MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 20 December 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/J4423/D/17/3188254 23 Lawson Road, Sheffield, S10 5BU  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 Mrs Lesley Jefferies against the decision of Sheffield City Council.  The application Ref 17/02495/FUL, dated 12 June 2017, was refused by notice dated 23 August 2017.  The development proposed is replacement of a fence. Procedural Matter 1. The fence has already been erected in part and so the application has been made retrospectively. Decision 2. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a replacement fence at 23 Lawson Road, Sheffield, S10 5BU in accordance with application ref 17/02495/FUL, dated 12 June 2017 and the plans submitted with it and subject to the following condition: 1. Within 6 weeks of the date of this permission details of the finished appearance of the fence and a planting plan to secure the screening of the fence shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The development shall thereafter be implemented and maintained in accordance with the approved details. Main Issue 3. The main issue for the appeal is whether the proposal preserves or enhances the character or appearance of the Broomhill Conservation Area. Reasons 4. Lawson Road is made up of substantial Victorian villas which sit behind stone boundary walls immediately adjoining the road. The gardens are also well established and hedges and other planting sits above these boundary walls, screening the properties behind. This attractive and well defined frontage to the road contributes to the leafy and prosperous character of this part of the Broomhill Conservation Area, and is protected through the imposition of an Article 4 direction which seeks to control the loss and replacement of traditional boundary walls. 5. The appeal relates to a boundary fence which has been erected above and behind the stone boundary wall to No 23 Lawson Road. This property is Appeal Decision APP/J4423/D/17/3188254 2 unusual in that it is a relatively modern infill property, having been erected in around 1979. The property is smaller in scale than its immediate neighbours and in contrast to these sits with its side elevation facing the road. As the garden sits above street level, the fence, which is between 80–150cm in height, is clearly visible above the existing stone wall. At the time of my visit construction work was taking place on site. One of the fence panels was missing and the gap secured with what appeared to be plywood. 6. The appellant has advised that a fence had previously been in place on site, and I note that photographic evidence from around 1990 shows a fence along what could be the site boundary. It is clear that in the intervening period this has become overgrown with planting and so was not a notable feature in the street scene. The recent replacement is prominently visible in the street scene, due to its height and its colour, which because of its recent installation still has the orange/brown hue of new timber. It is also almost devoid of planting, although I noticed on site that ivy had started to grown from underneath the fence. 7. I recognise that although there are other fences visible in the wider street scene, they do not form part of the traditional pattern of boundaries within the conservation area. The erosion of the established dominance of stone walls as boundary features would cause harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area, and its significance as a heritage asset. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the visual harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area which is occurring in this case, is temporary. The stone wall is unaltered, and remains the key visual attribute along the boundary, alongside those of adjoining properties. The fence will mellow in appearance once it has been wintered, and its prominence in the street scene would also diminish with the establishment of planting. I note that it is the appellant’s intention to let the ivy grow up the fence as before, but this could also be required by way of a planning condition. With this in mind, within a relatively short period of time the boundary will be likely to return to something close to its previous appearance. 8. Accordingly I conclude that subject to the provision of appropriate planting, the proposal would preserve the character and the appearance of the Broomhill Conservation Area. I find no conflict with saved policies BE5, BE16, BE17 and H14(a) the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan and policy CS74 of the Sheffield Development Framework Core Strategy which together seek to preserve townscape character by ensuring development makes a positive contribution to the appearance of the area, including conservation areas. I also consider it would comply with the objectives contained within the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks to conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance. The Council have also referred to Supplementary Planning Guidance for Designing House Extensions. However, I do not consider this to be directly applicable to the proposal before me. Conclusions 9. For the reasons given above I consider that the appeal be allowed. As the application is made retrospectively I do not consider a time limit for commencement to be necessary. However, in order to secure appropriate planting, and that the completed fence has an acceptable appearance, I have Appeal Decision APP/J4423/D/17/3188254 3 imposed a condition in this regard. I do not consider any other conditions to be necessary. Anne Jordan INSPECTOR