New fence

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 1 April 2019 by J Spurling BSc(Hons) DipTP PGDip(Law) PGDip(CMI) MRTPI MCMI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 9th May 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/K2420/D/19/3221656 1 Sandy Crescent, Hinckley, Leicestershire LE10 0TG • 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 Steven Guy against the decision of Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council. • The application Ref 18/00883/HOU, dated 4 September 2018, was refused by notice dated 12 December 2018. • The development proposed is described as a ‘new fence’. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. The description of development set out above has been taken from the planning application form. The appeal form refers to the same. The Council’s decision notice describes the scheme as ‘erection of a 1.8 metre fence (retrospective). I feel this most accurately reflects the nature of the proposed development in more precise terms. I have proceeded on this basis. 3. The application form does not have a signed declaration, but the appeal form and Council’s decision notice refer to the date of the application as 4 September 2018. I have therefore taken this date as the date of the application. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the street scene. Reasons 5. The appeal property is a semi-detached dwelling on a residential estate. A characteristic feature of the estate is that properties are set back from the road with largely open plan front gardens and front driveways. Any built means of enclosure are generally low level. 6. No. 1 Sandy Crescent is located close to the corner of Sandy Crescent and Westray Drive. The other semi-detached property No. 42 Westray Drive has been built at right angles to No. 1. Part of the garden to No. 1 fronts onto Sandy Crescent and part of the garden fronts onto Westray Drive. Appeal Decision APP/K2420/D/19/3221656 2 7. The fencing the subject of this appeal is already in place. It comprises bow topped lattice fence panels on top of gravel boards supported by concrete posts. The fence forms the common boundary between the appeal site and No. 42. It then fronts onto Westray Drive, where there is a footway. The fence then runs at roughly a 45 degree angle, at the rear of the footway, as you enter Sandy Crescent. The fence then runs broadly in a westerly direction to adjoin the front elevation of No. 1. The remaining front garden area to No. 1 comprises an area of hardstanding with no boundary treatment. 8. The fencing is clearly visible in the street scene and is a prominent feature due to its length, height and siting. It is particularly noticeable from Westray Drive when travelling broadly westwards towards Sandy Crescent, due to its location on the corner of these two roads. The fence forms a stark form of boundary treatment, which is out of character with its more open surroundings. 9. My attention has been drawn by the appellant to other timber fences that have been erected within the estate. I did observe that in some instances there were large fences located adjacent to footways within the estate including on corner plots. Nonetheless, such fencing was generally not a common feature in the street scene, particularly in such prominent locations or extents at points this close to the highway. I also observed that, in some instances, the appearance of fencing was softened through the use of supplementary landscaping. Whilst photographic evidence and the location of these other fences has been provided to me, I have not been provided with sufficient detail to draw any direct comparison with the appeal proposal and I do not know the circumstances under which these developments were granted planning permission, indeed if they have. In any event, the appeal must be considered on its merits. 10. For the above reasons, I conclude that the fence is an unsympathetic addition to the front of the property which detracts from the character and appearance of the street scene. Therefore, I consider that the proposal would conflict with Policy DM10 of the Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (July 2016). Amongst other matters, this seeks to ensure that development complements or enhances the character of the surrounding area. Other Matters 11. The appellant has referenced pre application advice, which was provided by the Council. However, it is not part of my role, in reaching my decision on this appeal, to pass comment about the Council’s pre-application advice. It also appears to be the case that no neighbours have objected to the fence. This does not however absolve me from making an assessment of its impact as this is the main issue in the determination of the appeal before me. Conclusion 12. For these reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal should be dismissed. J Spurling INSPECTOR