We would like to increase the size of the boundary wall which surrounds our property from a height of 75 cm up to 190cm which will be lower than the current hedges which are in place, in addition we would like to erect some gate posts and cedar wooden gates which are of similar height to the new fence

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 27 February 2019 by M Brooker DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 06 June 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/A4520/W/18/3218120 139 Bede Burn Road, Jarrow NE32 5AZ • 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 Ian Twizell against the decision of South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council. • The application Ref ST/0660/18/HFUL, dated 4 July 2018, was refused by notice dated 28 September 2018. • The development proposed is described as “we would like to increase the size of the boundary wall which surrounds our property from a height of 75 cm up to 190cm which will be lower than the current hedges which are in place, in addition we would like to erect some gate posts and cedar wooden gates which are of similar height to the new fence.” Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. The development has been constructed and consequently the Council dealt with the application as being retrospective. The Council’s reason for refusal refers to the inaccuracy of the submitted plans because they omit the brick pillars that have been constructed to support the fence and furthermore, the height of the fence as detailed on the submitted plan is not accurately show in relation to the existing brick boundary wall. The Appellant has referred to the brick pillars in their appeal statement and as such I have determined the appeal on the basis of what I saw on site. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Reasons 4. The appeal property is a substantial brick-built end of terrace residential dwelling in an area where smaller terraced properties predominate. The property is set back from Field Terrace by a large garden, partially given over to car parking and from Bede Burn Road by a narrow garden. 5. The boundary of the appeal property occupies a prominent position within the area and is clearly visible along Field Terrace and Bede Burn Road. The gate, close boarded fence and associated brick pillars for which consent is sought are Appeal Decision APP/A4520/W/18/3218120 2 a discordant feature within the area in contrast to the low-level boundary treatments found elsewhere in the area. 6. That the fence and pillars are not of the same height as the existing brick wall to the side of the property increases the prominence of the fence as a discordant feature within the area. Furthermore, the pillars and gate posts are constructed of reclaimed bricks that do not match the appearance of the lower sections of the brick boundary wall further increasing their prominence. 7. I note that the fence is approximately the same height as the hedge situated to the rear of the boundary wall but the hedge is outside of planning control and as such does not set a precedent for the fencing proposed here. 8. The Appellant has provided historic photographs of the appeal property showing a tall brick boundary wall and details of other boundary treatments in the area, including the tall brick wall to the Field Terrace boundary of ‘Danesfield’ directly opposite the appeal property. However, the development before me is a solid fence, pillars and gate and as such amounts to a significantly different undertaking compared to the examples provided. Consequently, I am not persuaded that these boundary treatments outweigh the harm I have previously identified. 9. Therefore, I find that the fence, pillars and gate are a prominent and discordant feature harming the character and appearance of the surrounding area contrary to Policy DM1 (a) of the South Tyneside Local Development Framework Development Management Policies (2011) that seeks to ensure that new development is in keeping with the surrounding area. Other Matters 10. The appellant has suggested that the colour of the close boarded fence could be altered to reduce its visual prominence and that this could be controlled by condition. I observed on site that the colour treatment does increase the prominence of the fence, but I do not find that an alternative colour would reduce the prominence so such a level as to make the development acceptable. 11. That the boundary treatment affords the occupiers of the appeal property privacy and security to enjoy the use of the front garden and prevents waste, discarded by passing pedestrians, from entering the garden is a matter to which I give some weight. However, it does not outweigh the harm to the character and appearance of the area that I have identified previously. 12. As the requested by the appellant I have considered the possibility of reaching a split decision to dismiss the fence and pillars but allow the gate. However, I find that the gate would be physically and functionally linked to the remainder of the boundary treatment. Therefore, a split decision allowing this element of the proposal alone would be inappropriate. Conclusion 13. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Mark Brooker Inspector