Installation of garden fence

Appeal Decision Site Visit made on 16 February 2021 by Mr Martin Allen BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 2 March 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/V1260/D/20/3266033 2 Wynne Close, Poole, BH18 9HQ • 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 Nathan Page against the decision of Bournemouth Christchurch and Poole Council. • The application Ref APP/20/00909/F, dated 13 August 2020, was refused by notice dated 20 October 2020. • The development proposed is the installation of garden fence. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. The appeal site lies at a prominent corner position adjoining Wynne Close and Lewesdon Drive, with views of the site available from a large part of the surrounding area. The site is currently enclosed along the frontage to these two roads by hedging and shrubs, above a low stone wall. There is however a general openness to the frontage of properties within the area, with the majority of frontages delineated by low landscaping or low fencing/walls. 4. The proposed fencing would be 1.8m in height and extend for a significant portion of the boundary. Its position directly adjacent to the footway, at this prominent location would result in the fence being an unduly dominant visual element. It would be a discordant addition to the streetscene, failing to appropriately respond to the context of the surrounding, more open, and visually permeable frontages. 5. Accordingly, it would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area, in conflict with policy PP27 of the Poole Local Plan (2018), insofar as it seeks to ensure development reflects local patterns of development. Other Matters 6. I acknowledge that the fencing would result in benefits to the occupiers of the dwelling in terms of an improved level of privacy and security, particularly in respect of children utilising the garden space. However, I observed there to be an enclosed area of garden to the other side of the dwelling and thus there is a secure and private area available for the use of the occupiers. This benefit does not therefore outweigh the harm I have found. There may also be some small Appeal Decision APP/V1260/D/20/3266033 2 benefit in terms of a reduction in traffic noise, however there is nothing to suggest that this is currently unacceptable. 7. I also noted in the area the presence of some larger planting to the frontages of properties. While these instances were at odds with the more open frontages, the planting was softer in appearance than the proposed fencing would be and as such these examples do not provide a justification for allowing the appeal. Conclusion 8. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Martin Allen INSPECTOR