Retrospective planning permission for 4 fence panels installed at front of my garden approximately 6’ high

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 25 September 2018 by Andrew Tucker BA (Hons) IHBC an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 16 October 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/D0121/D/18/3205506 29a Clarence Road North, Weston-Super-Mare BS23 4AW  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 Ms Marion Nicholas against the decision of North Somerset Council.  The application Ref 17/P/5579/FUH, dated 16 December 2017, was refused by notice dated 24 April 2018.  The development is described as ‘retrospective planning permission for 4 fence panels installed at front of my garden approximately 6’ high’. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. The fence has been erected and therefore I am considering this appeal retrospectively. 3. On 24 July 2018, during the appeal process, the Government published its revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Both parties have had an opportunity to comment on the revisions where they may be relevant to this case and I have taken their responses into account in reaching my decision. Main Issue 4. Whether the proposal preserves or enhances the character or appearance of the Beach Lawns Conservation Area. Reasons 5. The area within which the appeal site is located is characterised by a consistent arrangement of large Victorian properties, mainly semi-detached, set back a considerable distance from the road with generous front gardens. The buildings are richly decorated with various ashlar stone details used on projecting bays and prominent gables facing the road. This rich detailing is further enhanced by the consistent boundary treatments along the road edge. Low walls are built in a grey natural stone, topped with a flat coping stone. These are interspersed by taller gate piers to mark entrances. These are strong defining characteristics of the Beach Lawns Conservation Area. Appeal Decision APP/D0121/D/18/3205506 2 6. The fence subject of this appeal sits just behind one of these front boundary walls. It comprises four timber panels with low arched heads fixed to timber posts. It stands well above the height of the front wall and the adjacent gate pier, and as a result looks cumbersome alongside these fine boundary features. Many front boundaries in the area are supplemented by shrubs and hedges, which do not look out of place, whereas the fence has a stark appearance that does not accord with the character of the the area. 7. The appellant has referred to a number of other fences in the vicinity. Whilst I accept that there are a few comparable examples these are isolated and not sufficient to have altered the prevailing character of the area. Similarly reference is made to 1970’s development in the immediate area, but again instances of modern development are isolated and do not alter the area’s strong prevailing character. Furthermore where modern development has taken place the buildings are still fronted by similar stone boundary walls. 8. I note the strength of local feeling demonstrated by the petition in support of the retention of the fence. However, this local support does not alter my conclusion that the development is inappropriate in this context. 9. The statutory duty set out in Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area. The fence has a negative effect on the significance of the conservation area, resulting in harm. In terms of the Framework the harm is less than substantial, however permission should only be allowed if clear public benefits outweigh against this harm. There are no public benefits arising from the erection of the fence that have been brought to my attention that would weigh against the harm. 10. For the reasons above I conclude that the fence fails to preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. It is also contrary to the Framework, policies CS5 and CS12 of the North Somerset Core Strategy and policies DM3, DM32 and DM38 of the North Somerset Sites and Policies Plan (Part 1), which together seek to conserve or enhance conservation areas and achieve high quality design. Conclusion 11. For the reasons given above, the appeal is dismissed. Andrew Tucker Inspector