Retention of 1.8m high chain link fence to front boundary with Portuguese laurel and ivy screening

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 December 2018 by Chris Couper BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 14 December 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/N1920/D/18/3210942 35 Loom Lane, Radlett WD7 8AB  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 J Hart against the decision of Hertsmere Borough Council.  The application Ref 18/0803/HSE, dated 20 April 2018, was refused by notice dated 18 June 2018.  The development proposed is described as the ‘retention of 1.8m high chain link fence to front boundary with Portuguese laurel and ivy screening’. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a 1.8m high chain link fence to the front boundary with Portuguese laurel and ivy screening at 35 Loom Lane, Radlett WD7 8AB in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 18/0803/HSE, dated 20 April 2018, and drawing numbers A-35LLWD7-PP-01, A-35LLWD7-PP-02 and A-35LLWD7-PP-03, subject to the following condition: 1) The landscaping as depicted on drawing nos. A-35LLWD7-PP-01 and A-35LLWD7-PP-02 shall be retained and maintained in accordance with those drawings for so long as the 1.8m high chain link fence hereby approved remains in place. Any shrub comprising part of the landscaping as depicted on those drawings which is damaged or dies shall be replaced in the first available planting season in accordance with details that shall have been previously submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Procedural matters 2. The chain link fence is already in place. However, as ‘retention’ is not an act of development, I have omitted reference to that in my formal decision. As well as the chain link fence, entrance gates and piers are shown on the drawings, and the Council added those elements to its description of the development. However, as they formed no part of the applicant’s description, and having regard to paragraphs 1.01, 4.01 and 4.07 of the Planning Appeal Statement, I have not considered them in my decision. 3. The Council’s decision pre-dated the publication of the revised National Planning Policy Framework 2018 (‘Framework’). I have therefore had regard to that revised document in my decision, rather than the now superceded version. Appeal Decision APP/N1920/D/18/3210942 2 Main Issue 4. The main issue is the impact of the development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 5. The appeal site is prominently located at the junction of Loom Lane and The Ridgeway. The properties in this area are generally set back from the road on spacious, often landscaped plots. Many properties have hedgerows or trees along their street frontage, although I also observed other forms of boundary treatment including brick walls, fences (sometimes behind hedgerows) and railings. The low density of the housing within landscaped plots gives the area a spacious and verdant character. 6. In itself, the chain link fence is a fairly tall and stark feature which could have a significant adverse impact on the streetscene. Indeed, a previous Inspector considering appeals against enforcement notices on the site (Ref: APP/N1920/C/15/3135741 and APP/N1920/C/15/3135742) (‘previous appeals’) found it to be incongruous, commenting that whilst it might become completely obscured by the hedge, neither that, nor the continued existence of the hedge, could be assumed. 7. Over time, and as demonstrated by the photograph at Appendix J of the Planning Appeal Statement, and as shown on the drawings, a tall evergreen hedgerow has become established in front of most of the fence. Consequently, other than a short stretch denoted as ‘side view B-B (at gates)’, it is now barely visible, if at all, in the streetscene. Given the landscaping behind it, even that less well-screened section is not prominent, and I have no doubt that it will blend in further with the area’s character as the ivy becomes more established. 8. The overall impression in the streetscene is therefore of a tall, dense evergreen hedgerow and other landscaping, which respects the area’s character and appearance. Given that conclusion, the development does not, in my view, increase the perception or fear of crime any more than other boundary treatment nearby. 9. I do not have before me all the evidence considered in the previous appeals, which were brought on the grounds that the steps required to be taken exceeded what was necessary to remedy any breach of planning control. However, in this section 78 appeal, the appellant has suggested a mechanism to require the retention of the landscaping. In my view such a condition is necessary to fully mitigate the harm that, without it, the fence would cause. 10. Subject to such a condition, the development does not harm the character and appearance of the area. It does not therefore conflict with Hertsmere Core Strategy 2013 Policies SP1 and CS22, or Hertsmere Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Plan 2016 Policy SADM30. Amongst other things, they require that development be of a high quality design, which is attractive and appropriate to the local context, and that it takes advantage of opportunities to improve the character and quality of an area. 11. Additionally, the scheme does not conflict with Parts D and E of the Hertsmere Planning and Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document which require gardens to have a landscape design, including boundary treatment, which Appeal Decision APP/N1920/D/18/3210942 3 reflects or complements the character of the area; and which require proposals not to increase segregation, or the fear and perception of crime. It also satisfies the Framework’s requirements for good design. Conditions and conclusion 12. Turning to the matter of conditions, although the Council has suggested the standard time limit, matching materials and plans conditions, given that this appeal relates to a fence which is already in place, none of those are appropriate. 13. However, in his letter to the Council dated 18 April 2018, and in his Planning Appeal Statement, the appellant suggested a condition requiring that the landscaping be retained in perpetuity. At Appendix B of his letter he provides an example of such a type of condition imposed elsewhere at appeal. Given my conclusions on the main issue, I agree that the retention of the landscaping here is necessary to screen the adverse impact the chain link fence would otherwise have on the streetscene. 14. I have therefore imposed a condition broadly as suggested, but requiring that the landscaping as depicted on the drawings be retained and maintained in accordance with those drawings for so long as the fence shall remain in place. 15. Subject to that condition, the development does not have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area. Having regard to all other matters raised the appeal is therefore allowed. Chris Couper INSPECTOR