Proposed retention of a replacement fence and gates to the front boundary

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 17 December 2025 by S Jamieson BA (Hons) MPlan MRTPI Decision by B Plenty BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 5th March 2026 Appeal Ref: 6001456 Little Manor, Great North Road, Gamston, Nottinghamshire DN22 0PY • 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 Mrs Lauren Barlow against the decision of Bassetlaw District Council. • The application Ref is 25/00037/HSE. • The development is described as proposed retention of a replacement fence and gates to the front boundary. 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. I saw on my site visit that the boundary fence is already in situ. Planning permission is therefore sought retrospectively. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to the Gamston Conservation Area (GCA). Reasons for the Recommendation 5. The appeal relates to a detached dwelling located on an arterial road through Gamston. I have not been provided with a Conservation Area Appraisal for the GCA, though from my own observations, its significance lies in the historic street pattern and the high quality architecture of its many period buildings. Red brick is the predominant facing material and where boundary treatments front the highway, these often comprise brick walls, picket fencing and soft landscaping. These features give the area a spacious and verdant quality that contributes positively to the village’s historic character and, by extension, the significance of the GCA. 6. Due to its height and substantial length along the front of the appeal site, the close board fence and gate have an enclosing and unwelcoming presence in the street scene which, along with the use of timber and concrete posts and plinths, gives the fence a harsh and unduly dominant appearance. Moreover, and even accounting for the 40mph speed limit and the fact that pedestrian movements might be less Appeal Decision 6001456 2 frequent than that of cars, the fence is a prominent feature in the street scene and highly visible to passers-by, including those waiting or alighting at the adjacent bus stop. 7. There are some examples of close board fences that have been erected in the GCA, which are referenced by the appellant. However, the example at 4 Great North Road is not as high nor as long as the appeal fence. The examples cited at Clinton Rise and Rectory Lane are also lesser in extent than the fence before me. While the boundary fence at Orchard Lodge is substantial in length, it is not as high as the appeal scheme along the Great North Road boundary, meaning the front of the plot retains a sense of openness. These examples are not therefore directly comparable to the appeal scheme, nor do they represent the prevailing boundary treatment on Great North Road or the wider GCA. 8. Therefore, and notwithstanding the appeal dwelling’s modern appearance, as a result of its scale and siting, the fence fails to assimilate with the prevailing pattern and development and would undermine the area’s rural and historic character. Therefore, the fence is harmful to the character and appearance of the area, neither preserving nor enhancing the GCA or its significance. 9. Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 sets out that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas. Given the scale and nature of the proposal, the harm to the significance of the GCA would be at the lower end of less than substantial having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). The Framework requires that this harm should be weighed against any public benefits deriving from the proposal. While I understand that the fence was erected to provide safety and security for its occupiers, these are essentially private benefits. Therefore, there are no public benefits sufficient to outweigh the great weight of the harm to the heritage asset. 10. For the above reasons, I conclude the development has a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to the GCA. It would therefore be contrary to Policies ST33, ST40 and ST41 of the Bassetlaw Local Plan (2024) which, amongst other things, require that developments are of high quality design and that proposals involving a designated heritage asset conserve, enhance or better reveal those elements which contribute to the heritage significance and/or its setting. For the same reasons, the development would also conflict with the guidance in the Bassetlaw Successful Places Design Guide (2013) and the good design and heritage conservation requirements of the Framework. Conclusion and Recommendation 11. The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. The appeal should therefore be dismissed. S Jamieson APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Appeal Decision 6001456 3 Inspector’s Decision 12. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. B Plenty INSPECTOR