To remove a hedge around the perimeter of the property which is dead and replace with a fence which is higher than 1 metre and adjacent to the road

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 July 2018 by Steven Rennie BA (Hons) BSc (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 18 July 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/P1615/D/18/3198292 1 Lower Cross, Clearwell, Gloucestershire GL16 8LD  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 Tim Nelmes against the decision of Forest of Dean District Council.  The application Ref P1855/17/FUL, dated 22 October 2017, was refused by notice dated 9 February 2018.  The development proposed is to remove a hedge around the perimeter of the property which is dead and replace with a fence which is higher than 1 metre and adjacent to the road. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a fence which is higher than 1 metre and adjacent to the road, at the rear of 1 Lower Cross, Clearwell, Gloucestershire GL16 8LD, in accordance with the application, Ref P1855/17/FUL, dated 22 October 2017, subject to the following condition: 1) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: - TN:04 Existing and proposed elevations (1 February 2018) - TN:03 Typical fence detail (4 December 2017) - TN:02 Previous and existing block plan (4 December 2017) - TN:01 Location Plan (4 December 2017) Procedural Matters 2. Whilst the description of development in the banner heading above is as per the planning application form, the act of development in this case is limited to the erection of a boundary fence, which is already in place, albeit at a greater height than proposed. I shall consider the appeal accordingly, with the omission of reference to the hedge from the description of development. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed fence on the character and appearance of the area, the Wye Valley Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and the setting of Clearwell Conservation Area (CA). Appeal Decision APP/P1615/D/18/3198292 2 Reasons 4. The proposal is for a fence, which is to replace a hedgerow which has already been removed. The fence which is already in place does not accord with the proposed plans as this shows a drop in height, particularly at the front of the site. As such, the fence on site is currently of a greater height than proposed with the submitted plans at the front of the site. 5. The property is on a corner plot, with a main road through the village to the front, and a smaller lane (Margery Lane) to the side. The fence is on an elevated position, above a retaining stone wall. As such, it is prominent within its setting. However, the fence is set around a modern dwelling, which serves as its backdrop. I also note that the fence has been treated which has darkened its colour and improved its appearance. 6. The proposed drop in height of the front section of the fence would also be beneficial as it would allow more of a view to the front of the house so that it would appear more open. The fence as proposed with the plans would be more appropriate in height and in that regard is more typical of other front boundary enclosure heights in the area. 7. I note that the immediate area of the site is characterised by hedgerow or stone wall boundaries. Many of these enclosures are to the boundaries of older properties within the Conservation Area, whereas this is a more modern dwelling where a suburban style fence is more common. Furthermore, I did note on my site visit that there are sections of fence similar to that proposed within the wider area which front the highway, which adds to the mix of enclosure types in the street scene. 8. As stated above, the site is within the setting of the CA, with the boundary being adjacent to the site. The National Planning Policy Framework advises that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance. Paragraph 132 of the Framework states that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. 9. Furthermore, the statutory duty in Section 72 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of CAs. 10. In this case, I do not regard the proposed fence as having a detrimental impact to the CA in Clearwell, for the reasons given above, and particularly as the fence would be against the backdrop of a modern dwelling. Therefore this heritage asset would be preserved. 11. Also, the site is in the AONB. The purpose of the AONB, as set out in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, is to conserve and enhance the landscape and scenic beauty of these areas. Paragraph 115 of the NPPF states that great weight should be accorded to conserving AONBs which have the highest status of protection. 12. However, in this village setting the development the fence would not appear as an encroachment into the countryside or adversely affect the wider rural Appeal Decision APP/P1615/D/18/3198292 3 landscape, as it is within the boundaries of a relatively modern dwelling. As such, it would conserve the qualities of the AONB. 13. Overall, it is considered that the proposal does not result in harm to the character and appearance of the area, the natural beauty of the designated AONB or the Conservation Area setting. As such, the development would accord with policies CSP 1 and CSP 4 of the Forest of Dean Core Strategy and policy AP4 of the Forest of Dean Allocations Plan, which seek to, amongst other things, require development to consider the effect of the proposal on the landscape, including AONBs; improve the quality of their environment; be visually attractive; and protect historic character and local distinctiveness. Furthermore, I consider the proposal to be in accordance with policy AP5, which is included in the ‘Planning Officers Report’, which seeks to, amongst other things, ensure that development protects and promotes historic character. Conditions 14. As development has commenced it is not possible to attach the standard time limit condition for commencing the erection of the fence. However, I have attached the plans condition as the fence on site does not fully match the proposed amended drawings. Conclusion 15. For the reasons given above, the appeal is allowed. Steven Rennie INSPECTOR