Fence 1 metre high around the perimeter of the front of the dwelling with two 1 metre high gates to enclose the property

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 1 July 2019 by J L Cheesley BA(Hons) DIPTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 04 July 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/E3525/D/19/3227140 49 Chalk Lane, Ixworth, Bury St. Edmunds, Suffolk IP31 2JQ • 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 Andrew Chaplin against the decision of St Edmundsbury Borough Council. • The application Ref DC/18/2361/HH was refused by notice dated 31 January 2019. • The development proposed is a fence 1 metre high around the perimeter of the front of the dwelling with two 1 metre high gates to enclose the property. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. I consider the main issue to be the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Reasons 3. The appeal property lies within a cul-de-sac where spatial openness of frontages is a prominent characteristic. I consider the open plan nature of the area makes an important positive contribution to the character and appearance of the streetscene. 4. The fence and gates have already been constructed. From my observations, due to the siting and design of the development, I consider that it unacceptably encloses the front of the property. As such, it appear as an incongruous addition to the streetscene. In such a prominent location, this is to the detriment of the open character and appearance of the surrounding area. 5. In reaching my conclusion, I have had regard to all matters raised including examples of other fences in the surrounding area. I have determined the appeal before me on its individual merits. I note from the Council that a number of other boundary treatments forward of principal elevations do not have the benefit of planning permission and others are significantly more modest in nature than the development that is the subject of this appeal. Appeal Decision APP/E3525/D/19/3227140 2 6. I note that the appellant wishes to create a safe front garden environment for children and dogs. Safety is a material consideration. Nevertheless, I note that the rear garden is enclosed by gates and I have no reason to assume that this area cannot provide a safe outside amenity area for children and dogs. 7. For the reasons stated above, I conclude that the development has an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Thus, the development is contrary to Policies DM2 and DM24 in the Forest Heath and St Edmundsbury Local Plan Joint Development Management Policies Document (2015), where they seek to ensure that development respects the character and appearance of an area. I consider these policies are broadly in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework; in so far as being in accordance with where the Framework seeks to ensure that planning should be taking account of the different roles and character of an area and should be seeking to ensure high quality design. J L Cheesley INSPECTOR