New brick garden wall with brick piers and timber fence panels

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 21 January 2026 by E Pickernell BSc MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 04 February 2026 Appeal Ref: 6000553 22 Kings Worthy Road, Fleet, Hampshire GU51 1AG • 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 Mr Thompson against the decision of Hart District Council. • The application Ref is 25/00978/HOU. • The development proposed is new brick garden wall with brick piers and timber fence panels. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for new brick garden wall with brick piers and timber fence panels at 22 Kings Worthy Road, Fleet, Hampshire GU51 1AG in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00978/HOU, and the plans submitted with it subject to the following condition: 1. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 25.22KR.PO1, 25.22KR.PO2, 25.22KR.P03 and 25.22.KR.P04. Preliminary Matters 2. The application form indicates that at the time of the application, work had been started. I saw at my site visit that the scheme is now substantially complete. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 4. The appeal site comprises a detached two storey dwelling, located in a modern residential development. The dwellings near to the appeal site generally comprise detached houses and short terraces, set back from the road behind front gardens of varying size and depth. There is a relatively high degree of variation in the area in terms of building style, however, the use of brick is common and provides a unifying feature in the locality. 5. Boundary treatments in the area are also varied; however front gardens are typically bound by low post and rail fencing or railings and are well landscaped which gives an open, attractive character to the area. Rear or side gardens, some of which are adjacent to the roads, are generally enclosed by taller brick walls and fences. Appeal Decision 6000553 2 6. The proposed boundary treatment comprises a low brick wall with piers and infill fencing panels to varying heights. Taken as a whole, this is taller and has more solidity than the fencing and railings which typically enclose front gardens in the area. However, the taller element, is limited in scale and amounts to a modest amount of the overall front boundary of the appeal site. The remainder of the front boundary is at a lower height with a wide opening to the driveway. Consequently, the site frontage is not fully enclosed and maintains a relatively open appearance 7. Furthermore, the structure is located on the inside of a bend in the road and is not excessively prominent in the street scene. The design of the boundary treatment including the infill panels, breaks down the mass of the wall and ensures that it is not imposing or dominant in views towards the site from public vantage points. The materials reflect those which are used elsewhere in the development. As a result, the proposal does not appear as an incongruous addition to the area. 8. Consequently, despite the absence of comparable front boundary structures in the area, the proposal has an acceptable appearance and does not significantly erode the open character of the area. 9. I therefore conclude that the proposal does not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. As such it accords with Policy NBE9 of the Hart Local Plan (Strategy and Sites) 2032 (adopted April 2020) and Policy GEN1 of the Hart District Local Plan (Replacement) 1996 – 2006 (Adopted April 2009). Together these seek to ensure that proposals are of a high-quality design and are in keeping with local character. Conditions 10. I have not included a time limit or materials condition as the work has commenced and is substantially complete. I have specified the approved plans in the interests of certainty and clarity. Conclusion 11. The proposal accords with the development plan when read as a whole. Therefore, for the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed. E Pickernell INSPECTOR