Erection of a 6ft (1.8m) close-boarded fence and 4ft (1.2m) picket fence around the front of the property

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 14 May 2018 by Ian McHugh Dip TP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 20th June 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/J0405/D/18/3196210 16 Meadow Gardens, Buckingham, Buckinghamshire, MK18 1BJ • 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 Cassandra Hammond against the decision of Aylesbury Vale District Council. • The application Ref 17/02448/APP, dated 28 June 2017, was refused by notice dated 19 December 2017. • The development proposed is the erection of a 6ft (1.8m) close-boarded fence and 4ft (1.2m) picket fence around the front of the property. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a 6ft (1.8m) close-boarded fence and 4ft (1.2m) picket fence around the front of the property at 16 Meadow Gardens, Buckingham, Buckinghamshire, MK18 1BJ, in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 17/02448/APP, dated 28 June 2017. Procedural Matter 2. The fencing has already been erected. Consequently, I have dealt with the proposal in accordance with the provisions of Section 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 4. The appeal site is an area of private garden land, which is situated at the front of the appellant’s bungalow. The property is part of a residential estate which, in the vicinity of the appeal site, includes a communal car parking area and grassed open space. Other nearby dwellings face the open space and the car park. A tree covered embankment separates the site from the nearby London Road (A421), which is one of the main traffic routes serving the town. 5. The proposal is to enclose an area that was formerly open, with a mix of close-boarded and picket style fencing. The appellant states that the fencing is necessary to prevent encroachment onto her land from members of the public and to provide privacy. The Council contends that the fencing is an overly prominent feature that detracts from the open character and appearance of the Appeal Decision APP/J0405/D/18/3196210 2 area. Policy GP35 of the adopted Aylesbury Vale District Local Plan 2004 (LP) seeks to ensure that new development respects and complements the physical characteristics of the site and its surroundings. In my opinion, this policy is consistent with the provisions of paragraph 58 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which states (amongst other things) that development should respond to local character and reflect the identity of local surroundings. 6. The fencing is clearly visible when approaching the site from the access road and car parking area and it does enclose an area of land that was previously viewed as part of a green open strip running along the front of the appeal dwelling and neighbouring properties. In that regard, there is some conflict with the LP as referred to above. However, the appeal site is positioned at the end of the row of housing and it is largely contained and enclosed by the highway embankment. Furthermore, there is an example of other fencing around a garden adjacent to the car parking area and this, together with the visual impact of parked vehicles, has the effect of reducing the open character and appearance of the area. 7. I acknowledge the Council’s concern that acceptance of the development could create a precedent for further fencing proposals in the locality. However, each case must be considered on its merits and, in my opinion, the positioning of the appeal fencing towards the end of Meadow Gardens and close to the highway embankment, distinguishes it from other sites nearby. 8. Accordingly, I consider that the fencing is not unacceptably harmful to the character and appearance of the area and that the material considerations detailed above outweigh any conflict with the Development Plan. Conditions 9. As the development has already been carried out, no conditions are necessary. Conclusion 10. For the reasons given above, it is concluded that the appeal should be allowed. Ian McHugh INSPECTOR