Fence around my boundary line, running from the front of my garage, down driveway and along the side of my garden then turn into the house at front entrance path towards front door of property. This will allow privacy and security as we are highly exposed in numerous rooms around our corner plot. The fence will be very neat and tidy and no higher than 6ft 6' throughout

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 22 January 2018 by Louise Phillips MA (Cantab) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 19 February 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/Z3825/D/17/3192961 1 Rosemary Avenue, Steyning BN44 3YS  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 Daniel Pond-Barrett against the decision of Horsham District Council.  The application Ref DC/17/2105, dated 26 April 2017, was refused by notice dated 12 December 2017.  The development proposed is described as “a fence around my boundary line, running from the front of my garage, down driveway and along the side of my garden then turn into the house at front entrance path towards front door of property. This will allow privacy and security as we are highly exposed in numerous rooms around our corner plot. The fence will be very neat and tidy and no higher than 6ft 6' throughout”. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. The development described above has commenced but is incomplete. For the avoidance of doubt, my decision concerns the fence shown on the plan entitled “Proposed Drawing for Privacy”. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the development upon the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 4. The appeal property is a bungalow situated on the corner of Kings Barn Lane and Rosemary Avenue. It presents a side elevation to Rosemary Avenue and a garden area runs the length of the plot between the building and the highway. It is proposed to erect a 6’ 6” close-boarded fence along the majority of the Rosemary Avenue boundary, with further panels along the rear driveway and adjoining the front of the house to enclose this side garden. 5. The majority of the properties on Rosemary Avenue have front gardens which are planted out to varying degrees and enclosed by low front walls. Where they exist at all, most of the front garden enclosures along the relevant stretch of Kings Barn Lane are plants and hedges and the arrangements on both roads contribute to the green and relatively open feel of the area. As shown in the appellant’s photographs, there are some higher and/or harder boundary Appeal Decision APP/Z3825/D/17/3192961 2 treatments along both roads, including a wall and tall hedges on the adjacent corner of Rosemary Avenue, but these are not representative. 6. On account of its length, height and solidity, the proposed fence at the appeal site would contrast markedly with the prevailing form of roadside boundary treatment in the vicinity. In particular, the section abutting the highway with Rosemary Avenue would be a prominent, incongruous and overbearing structure. Neither the retention of the property’s relatively open front garden adjacent to Kings Barn Lane, nor the presence of existing and proposed vegetation in the side garden behind the proposed fence, would be sufficient to offset the harm which would be caused along this boundary. 7. Thus I conclude that the development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area contrary to Policy 33 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015. This seeks to conserve and enhance the natural and built environment, including by requiring development to relate sympathetically to its surroundings and respect the character of the area. Other Matters 8. The appellant is concerned that passers-by on Rosemary Avenue can see into his living room and kitchen, and even see people leaving the bathroom through the kitchen window. The view into the house is presently unobstructed, but the windows are not unusually close to the highway. Privacy and a greater sense of security in both the house and side garden could be achieved by continuing an existing row of conifers on the Rosemary Avenue boundary which stand approximately 6’ tall. Indeed the situation could be improved significantly by the use of window blinds or similar. Therefore there are alternative ways of addressing this issue which would be more sympathetic to the character and appearance of the area. Consequently, the desire to achieve greater privacy does not outweigh the harm I have found. Conclusion 9. The proposed development would conflict with the development plan and there are no other considerations which outweigh this. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Louise Phillips INSPECTOR