Erection of a 1m high fence adjacent to the highway
📊
See the success rate & inspector analytics
Free to view — just create an account, no payment needed.
Sign Up FreeTechnical Issues Heatmap
Heritage & Conservation
Character & Appearance
Residential Amenity
Inspector’s Reasoning
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 25 January 2022
by David Murray BA (Hons) DMS MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 27 January 2022
Appeal Ref: APP/C3105/D/21/3285622
Mayford, Brick Hill, Hook Norton, Banbury, Oxon, OX15 5QA.
• 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 Mrs S Wassell against the decision of Cherwell District Council.
• The application Ref. 21/01056/F, dated 17 March 2021, was refused by notice dated 17
August 2021.
• The development proposed is the erection of a 1m high fence adjacent to the highway.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Preliminary matter
2. Although the Council describes the (retrospective) proposal as per the fourth
bullet point above, the application forms indicate that the fence is erected
above an existing wall so the overall height of the structure would range from
about 1.5m to 1.9m above ground level.
Main Issue
3. The main issue is the effect of the additional fence on the character and
appearance of the area including the Hook Norton Conservation Area.
Reasons
Background
4. The appeal site comprises the frontage of the garden of Mayford which is set
back from Brick Hill near the centre of the village and there is a public right of
way to the side of the property. There is an existing stone wall along this
frontage about 1 metre high. The appellant says the fence is needed to protect
cars from tree branches and provide privacy and security to the dwelling.
Effect on character and appearance
5. The significance of the heritage asset of the Conservation Area is set out in the
Hook Norton Conservation Area Appraisal (2007). The appraisal identifies that
the common means of enclosure along the streets in the village is with low
predominantly ironstone walls.
6. Along the appeal site frontage there is a stone wall (possibly of weathered
reconstituted stone rather than ironstone) and the proposed fence sits above
this. The additional timber fence results in a stark visual barrier to the edge of
Appeal Decision APP/C3105/D/21/3285622
2
the street and its overall length and light timber material harm the street scene
and are at odds with the general character of traditional means of enclosure.
Moreover, there is little opportunity for the impact of the fence to be mitigated
by, for example, additional landscaping or by the introduction of other design
features to reduce its unrelieved stark impact.
7. I find that the fence proposed does not preserve or enhance the character or
the appearance of the Conservation Area but harms it, contrary to the
requirements of Policy ESD 15 of the Cherwell Local Plan.
8. This harm amounts to ‘less than substantial harm’ as set out in paragraph 202
of the National Planning Policy Framework but it has not been demonstrated
that there are public benefits arising from the fence which outweighs this. The
national guidance also makes clear that great weight has to be applied to the
preservation of the heritage asset of the Conservation Area.
9. I have taken account of the appellant’s desire for privacy and security at the
front of her property but there are likely to be other solutions that could
achieve this, such as with landscaping, which would not have the same stark
visual impact and would be more appropriate to the setting of the village. I
have also taken note of the support she says that she has received from
neighbours and local people about the fence, but I cannot afford this much
weight in the planning balance.
10. Overall I find than the harm caused and the conflict with the development plan
are not outweighed by other considerations and this indicates that the appeal
should not be allowed.
Conclusion
11. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.
David Murray
INSPECTOR
Expert Representation
Don't leave your appeal to chance.
Inspectors are inconsistent. We build a technical defense using precedents from our 182,000+ case archive.
No win, no fee Householder representation — you only pay if you win.