Construction of featherboard fencing at a height of 2.4 metres, attached to the wall on the boundary, starting at the driveway and running to the gate

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 June 2018 by M Bale BA (hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 25 June 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/D/18/3197476 60 Littlemead Lane, Exmouth, Devon EX8 3BU  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 Matthew Luxton against the decision of East Devon District Council.  The application Ref 17/2518/FUL, dated 18 October 2017, was refused by notice dated 19 December 2017.  The development proposed is the construction of featherboard fencing at a height of 2.4 metres, attached to the wall on the boundary, starting at the driveway and running to the gate. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary matters 2. The development has already been carried out. There are minor differences relating to the shape of the top of the fence at the site and that shown in the plans but these are not material to my decision. Therefore, whilst I have had regard to the plans, I have determined the appeal on the basis of the fence as it exists at the site. 3. I have made minor revisions to the description of the development in the heading above in the interests of clarity but this does not alter the development applied for. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 5. The area around the appeal site is characterised by dwellings that are generally set back from the road in open front gardens. Whilst there are some fences and high hedges along the roadside boundaries, including opposite the appeal site, the general appearance is one of openness. I saw that there was a similar fence at the corner of April Close and Mount Pleasant Avenue and there are others of varying sizes and colours in the wider area. However, these have not altered the character of the area to such an extent that fences are a defining feature. Appeal Decision APP/U1105/D/18/3197476 2 6. The fence at No. 60 is situated in a prominent location that encloses the otherwise open frontage of this corner plot. Its height means that it is a dominant feature in the street scene when viewed from all directions which fails to respect the character and harms the appearance of the area. Whilst the appellant feels that an alternative siting that would not require planning permission would result in an unsatisfactory visual appearance and leave an unmanageable area of land, this does not lessen the harm caused by the appeal proposal. Furthermore, given the appellant’s concerns with this alternative, it seems unlikely to be pursued and, therefore, I give any comparison to it limited weight. On the evidence available, the other alternatives suggested by the Council would appear to cause less harm than the appeal development. 7. The harm caused to the character and appearance of the area brings the development into conflict with Policy D1 of the East Devon Local Plan (2016) which seeks to ensure that new development is of a high quality and locally distinctive by various means including respecting the key characteristics of the area and ensuring its scale and height relates well to its context. Other matters 8. I note the appellant’s desire to provide privacy to his tenants, the reasons behind this and that it is felt that an open garden would be unsafe for visiting children. However, these personal wishes carry only limited weight when viewed against the wider policy aims to protect the character and appearance of the area in the public interest and do not outweigh the harm that I have identified. 9. Whilst certain Council officers may have suggested that the fence may be acceptable in the past, this is not the stated position of the Council in the evidence that is before me. I note that that the appellant feels that the Council has been inconsistent in terms of decisions on fences within the area, but I have limited background information relating to these other examples and there is no substantive evidence to show that this is the case. In any event, this has little to do with the merits of the appeal development. Conclusion 10. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. M Bale INSPECTOR