Erection of 6ft fence, comprising concrete fence posts, 1ft gravel boards and 5ft timber vertilap fence panels. Fence erected to north / north western boundary of property and not extending beyond front elevation/building line of house

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 December 2025 by S Jamieson BA (Hons) MPlan Decision by P Hanna PGDip MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10 February 2026 Appeal Ref: 6000918 2 The Paddocks, Lound, Nottinghamshire DN22 8RR • 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 Thomas Flint against the decision of Bassetlaw District Council. • The application Ref is 25/00837/HSE. • The development is erection of 6ft fence, comprising concrete fence posts, 1ft gravel boards and 5ft timber vertilap fence panels. Fence erected to north / north western boundary of property and not extending beyond front elevation/building line of house. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Preliminary Matters 3. On my site visit, I observed that the hedge shown on the existing drawings had been removed and a fence erected in its place. Therefore, the appeal is for retrospective development works. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons for the Recommendation 5. The appeal dwelling occupies a corner plot on a residential cul-de-sac at the edge of the village. Surrounding properties are set back from the road behind front gardens and driveways, with boundary treatments predominately comprising shrubs, trees and hedges planted behind low walls. This gives the street an open, verdant character that contributes positively to its rural setting. 6. Due to its timber and concrete construction, combined with its height and substantial length along the side and rear of the appeal site, the fence appears as a harsh and discordant feature that, notwithstanding the street being a relatively recent extension to the village, fails to assimilate with the typically low level and soft landscaped treatments bounding neighbouring plots. This is accentuated by the fence’s prominent siting close to the pavement edge which gives it an unduly Appeal Decision 6000918 2 dominant appearance that, together with its incongruous design, significantly diminishes the street’s green and spacious character. While I acknowledge the appellant would be willing to reorientate the panels, apply stain, and provide planting to help soften its visual appearance, these changes would be insufficient to overcome the fundamental harm arising from the fence’s combined siting, scale and materiality. 7. My attention has been drawn to other examples of fencing in the area. However, the two fences located at either end of the turning head are either significantly shorter in length than the appeal scheme or positioned more discreetly in relation to the pavement. The fence referred to on Town Street is also physically separate from the appeal site and therefore has different visibility within the street scene. I do not have the full planning history of the fence located at the entrance to the Paddocks before me and so I cannot be certain of the planning context in which it may have received permission, if at all. As such, these limited examples do not justify a development that appears incongruous in its immediate setting. 8. While it is reasonable to expect some form of garden enclosure, particularly on a corner plot, where the occupiers include young children, I am unconvinced that the development before me is the only means of achieving privacy, security and containment. Local support for the fence and the removal of a hedge that may have become overgrown or unsightly also do not justify a development that, for the above reasons, is harmful. 9. Consequently, the development has an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. It therefore conflicts with Policy ST33 of the Bassetlaw Local Plan (2024) and Policy 7 of the Lound Neighbourhood Plan (2022) which require, amongst other things, that development is of high quality design and that particular attention is given to boundary treatments that reflect the surrounding character. For the same reasons, it also conflicts with the requirements for good design in the National Planning Policy Framework. Conclusion and Recommendation 10. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. S Jamieson APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 11. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. P Hanna INSPECTOR