Removal of a largely dead conifer front hedge and replacement with a wooden fence (building up existing stone posts to support interleaved wooden panels)

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 30 April 2019 by M Savage BSc (Hons) MCD MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 15 May 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/B3438/D/18/3217336 The Gables, Cheddleton Road, Leek ST13 5RE • 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 James Massey against the decision of Staffordshire Moorlands District Council. • The application Ref SMD/2018/0347, dated 30 May 2018, was refused by notice dated 10 September 2018. • The development proposed is the removal of a largely dead conifer front hedge and replacement with a wooden fence (building up existing stone posts to support interleaved wooden panels). Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. During the course of the appeal a revised Framework (February 2019) was published. As policies of the Framework that are material to this case have not changed fundamentally, I have taken it into account in reaching my decision and am satisfied that this has not prejudiced either party. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 4. The Gables is a substantial detached property which is accessed off Cheddleton Road. The Council describe the street scene as dominated by hedges which creates a semi-rural character. This matter is disputed by the appellant, who asserts that his house sits in an attractive but clearly urban area. I acknowledge that there are a number of buildings which are accessed off Cheddleton Road. However, green spaces, trees and vegetation the area a semi-rural character. Furthermore, there is limited built development along the side of the road that the appeal dwelling is located. 5. The appeal dwelling has a generous frontage with the highway which is bound by a stone wall with a coniferous hedge above. I saw that such boundary treatments are typical of the wider area and contribute towards its semi-rural character. The appellant asserts that the hedge is dead and should be removed and proposes to erect a wooden fence which would extend above the existing Appeal Decision APP/B3438/D/18/3217336 2 hedge with the Hollington stone pillars built up using stone which would match the existing. 6. Although the proposed fence would be a similar height to the existing hedge, fences above stone walls are not generally characteristic of the locality. The fence would be a dominant, incongruous feature in the street scene which would diminish the character and appearance of the area as a result. I acknowledge that people travelling by vehicle along Cheddleton Road would have a transitory side-on view and that the appeal site is not located within a Conservation Area. Nevertheless, the site occupies a prominent position along Cheddleton Road and the existing boundary treatment contributes towards the semi-rural character of the area. 7. Whilst the Council accepted that the proposal was acceptable in principle and did not identify conflict with the Council’s Design SPD or make reference to policy specifically related to boundary treatments, objection was made in relation to Policy DC1 of the Staffordshire Moorlands Core Strategy Development Plan Document (CSDPD)(2014) which seeks to ensure that new development respects the site and its surroundings and promotes a positive sense of place and identity through its scale, density, layout, siting, landscaping, character and appearance, amongst other things. 8. The appellant asserts that the Council did not appear to consider whether conditions could address its concerns nor did the Council give him opportunity to amend the proposal. I have considered whether it would be possible to address the harm to character and appearance by way of a condition, however, I do not consider that an alternative colour would satisfactorily mitigate the harm I have identified above. I have also considered whether it would be appropriate to limit the height of the fence panels, however, I have no alternative proposals before me, therefore such a condition would not be reasonable. 9. I acknowledge that the proposed fence would provide a degree of noise attenuation for the appellant’s property. However, I do not have any substantive evidence before me that noise levels within the property would be unacceptable in the event that the hedge were to be removed. Furthermore, I am not persuaded that the appeal scheme is the only means of achieving noise attenuation. I acknowledge that the fence would provide a degree of privacy which would be lost following removal of the hedge. However, this would principally be a private benefit and would not outweigh the harm I have identified above. 10. Thus, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area and would be contrary to Policy DC1 of the CSDPD. The proposal would also be contrary to Paragraph 127 of the Framework which states that decisions should ensure that developments are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscaping setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change. Other Matters 11. Whilst there are no highways objections to the proposal and no objections were received by the Council during its consideration of the application, the absence of objection in this respect does not weigh in support of the proposal. Appeal Decision APP/B3438/D/18/3217336 3 Conclusion 12. For the reasons given above, and having regard to all matters raised, the appeal is dismissed. M Savage INSPECTOR