Erection of a 2m high fence to side of highway. Fence at front has been lowered to 1m above ground level. 1m height front fence also wraps around the highway side by 3m before increasing to 2m height for privacy to rear garden

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 1 April 2025 by S Simms BSc (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 22 May 2025 Appeal Ref: APP/V2635/D/24/3357110 22 Stone Close, Watlington, King's Lynn, Norfolk PE33 0TE • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Steven Allard against the decision of King's Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council. • The application ref. is 24/01015/F. • The development proposed is the erection of a 2m high fence to side of highway. Fence at front has been lowered to 1m above ground level. 1m height front fence also wraps around the highway side by 3m before increasing to 2m height for privacy to rear garden. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. The original description of development provided in the application form included explanatory narrative that did not comprise development. The description of development provided on the Council’s decision notice is accurate and reflected in the banner heading above. 3. The Borough Council adopted the King's Lynn and West Norfolk Local Plan (LP) on 27 March 2025. As I must have regard to the development plan in force at the time of determining the appeal, comments were invited from the parties on the consequences of this for the appeal. 4. The Council supplied relevant policies and stated that they did not significantly impact the appeal. The appellant had no further comments. 5. I saw on site that a fence like that described in the application and appeal has already been erected. The application is therefore retrospective, and I have considered the appeal accordingly. Main Issue 6. The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 7. The site is the corner plot on a cul-de-sac of bungalows, behind which is public open space. Many plots in the wider area are open at the front, but a few have hedges or low fences, creating an open and spacious character. Appeal Decision APP/V2635/D/24/3357110 2 8. Taller fences form the boundaries of rear gardens with the public open space or with roads on corner plots. Examples of the latter are across the cul-de-sac and across the main road at the junction with a further cul-de-sac. 9. The first is around 7.5m in length, but the second is about 27m in length. Planning permission was not obtained for at least one of these. The development includes a taller fence of around 2m in height, which is also 27m in length, and can be seen in context with the other two, creating some cumulative visual impact. 10. The taller element of the proposal has a greater impact than the other existing tall fences due to its length and that it does not face open space and that it encloses a bungalow rather than a two-storey house. This exacerbates the mismatch of scale and extent to which it reduces the sense of spaciousness. 11. Consequently, the development would harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to Policies LP18 and LP21 of the King's Lynn and West Norfolk Local Plan and Policy 2 of the Watlington Neighbourhood Plan. These policies, amongst other things, require development to respond to context and character, particularly in terms of enclosure and façade rhythm. Other Matters 12. I note the appellant’s desire to provide privacy for the occupant of the property, but the proposed amount of development, which encloses a significant part of the plot, is not necessary to achieve that purpose and so I attach modest to this. 13. I note also that there may have been a benefit in terms of improved visibility for drivers and clearance for pedestrians from the removal of the previous hedge, but these could have been secured by normal maintenance and so I also attach modest weight to this. Conclusion 14. The desire to provide privacy and benefits in terms of visibility and clearance do not outweigh the conflict with the development plan as a whole and the appeal is therefore dismissed. S Simms INSPECTOR