1.8 meter high wooden fence around southern perimeter boundary

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 20 August 2018 by Andrew Smith BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 17 October 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/P0240/D/18/3205260 9 Croxley Court, Leighton Buzzard LU7 1YX  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 Andrew Kimble against the decision of Central Bedfordshire Council.  The application Ref CB/18/00352/FULL, dated 20 January 2018, was refused by notice dated 13 April 2018.  The development proposed is described as: ‘a 1.8 meter high wooden fence around southern perimeter boundary’. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. The fence is already in place. As the term retrospective is not an act of development, I have dealt with the application as a proposal for the erection of a 1.8 metre high wooden fence around the southern perimeter boundary. 3. The Council’s documents make it clear that the fence encloses an area of land to include it within the garden area of No 9. This formed part of the Council’s consideration of the scheme. The land is described by the Council as ‘amenity land’. The appellant does not dispute this. Therefore based on the evidence before me I have no reason to disagree with this approach and the appeal is considered on this basis. 4. Since the submission of the appeal, a revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework (July 2018) has been published by the Government. This is a material consideration in planning decisions. In relation to the main issues in this appeal, Government policy has not materially changed and it was not therefore necessary to invite any further comments from the parties. 5. For the avoidance of doubt, the Council has confirmed that the January 2018 version of the Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan 2015-2035 (the CBPSLP) is the latest version of this emerging document. Limited weight can be applied to it as it has yet to reach examination stage. The appeal has been considered on this basis. Appeal Decision APP/P0240/D/18/3205260 2 Main Issues 6. The main issues are the effect of the proposal upon (a) the character and appearance of the area; and (b) the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at 8 Millbank (No 8), with particular regard to outlook. Reasons Character and appearance 7. The frontages of properties located in the immediate vicinity of the appeal site are generally characterised by being either open or served by low-level brick walls to delineate either front or side boundaries. There are also sporadic examples of hedges and other soft landscaping features, as well as some examples of other close boarded timber treatments. Across the wider estate there is a general open character in place that is readily apparent within Croxley Court. 8. The fence that has been erected, due to its regimented close boarded design and notable height, is of stark visual appearance. Whilst not located forward of the host property, its prominence is heightened by the forward position of the dwelling relative to neighbouring properties. The piece of land enclosed by the fence would have contributed strongly to the open character of the wider area prior to its erection therefore. 9. Whilst the rear section of the fence that encloses the appeal site is not readily visible from public viewpoints, both the front and side sections of the fence address Croxley Court. The fence therefore has the appearance of jutting out in to the street scene when entering Croxley Court from Millbank. Indeed the side section sits hard against the pavement edge of the Court. Due to this position it would not be possible to soften the appearance of the fence by introducing landscaping. Therefore the fence diminishes the open character of Croxley Court. 10. I acknowledge that there is other existing close boarded fencing erected in the vicinity of the appeal site. However, the most substantial example of this, in contrast to the appeal scheme, is setback behind the front building line of No 9 and immediately behind a row of off-street car parking. As such it is not visible when entering Croxley Court and is not visually imposing in this context. 11. I also note further examples of close boarded fencing abutting Millbank. These delineate the side boundaries of selected properties located around the corner from the appeal site. However, these examples do not have a direct visual relationship with the appeal site and do not therefore readily influence the character and appearance of Croxley Court, which is generally characterised by properties with unenclosed frontages that address the street. 12. I consider therefore that the fence is harmful to the character and appearance of the area. The proposal does not enhance or reinforce the character and local distinctiveness of the area and is not of an overall appearance that harmonises with the local surroundings. It is therefore in conflict with Policy BE8 of the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review (the SBLPR) January 2004, in so far as this policy seeks to protect the character and appearance of the area. The proposal also encloses an area of amenity land within the appeal site’s private garden area in conflict with Policy R12 of the SBLPR, which seeks to protect all open spaces of value in the towns and villages of the District. Appeal Decision APP/P0240/D/18/3205260 3 13. I also note that the ethos of emerging Policies HQ1 and HQ10 of the CBPSLP follow the local policy position already set out in respective Policies BE8 and R12 of the SBLPR. Living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at 8 Millbank 14. The fence is positioned in front of part of the built extent and front garden area of No 8. The rear section of the fence has been erected to be setback from the boundary of No 8’s garden. The ground floor window and first floor window that serve habitable rooms of No 8 directly face the fence. 15. The fence, at approximately 1.8m in height, is setback a sufficient distance from No 8 so as not to be unduly domineering. The area between the facing habitable windows and the fence is soft landscaped private garden land that incorporates shrubbery that assists in softening the appearance of the fence. I note that parts of all sections of the fence are visible from the upstairs window of No 8, due to its elevated position. The outlook available is not, however, adversely affected by the presence of the fence because of its low level, limited extent and discreet position set beyond soft landscaping. Therefore, notwithstanding a slight change in ground level across the front garden of No 8, I do not consider that the fence has an overbearing effect upon the occupiers of No 8. 16. I therefore find no harm from the proposal to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at No 8, with particular regard to outlook. The proposed development causes no unacceptable adverse effects upon residential amenity in compliance with Policy BE8 of the SBLPR, in so far as this policy seeks to protect the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers in regard to outlook. Other Matters 17. Whilst an area of amenity land has been enclosed to form private garden, the external private area that has been created constitutes a small and enclosed addition to the private garden that affords limited outward views. 18. Whilst the fence may assist in blocking fumes from nearby vehicles, in creating a barrier to insects attracted to the area by closely sited bins, in providing a safe area for play and in potentially easing car parking congestion in the Close through the provision of an enlarged area for car parking, these factors have been afforded minimal weight when considered against the identified harm caused by the proposal. In the case of the enlarged area for car parking, this is particularly because the enclosed area created by the fence provides a contrived and unsuitable space for an additional parked car. Conclusion 19. I have found that the scheme would not have a harmful effect on the living conditions of existing occupiers at No 8. Nevertheless, this does not alter the harm caused to the character and appearance of the area. Therefore having regard to this and all other matters raised, including the support from No 1 Croxley Court, the appeal is dismissed. Andrew Smith INSPECTOR