Erection of a 6' composite fence and related landscaping

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 8 December 2025 by E Clifford BA (Hons) MA Decision by M Russell BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 02 March 2026 Appeal Ref: 6001480 1 Holly Close, Kidlington, Oxfordshire OX5 1EP  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 David Burns against the decision of Cherwell District Council.  The application Ref is 25/02043/F.  The development proposed is erection of a 6' composite fence and related landscaping. 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. At the time of my site visit, the proposed composite fence was already in place. The appeal is therefore assessed on the basis that planning permission is being sought retrospectively. 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 site comprises of a detached dwelling house set within a generous corner plot. It has a large, open front garden, a driveway to the side of the dwelling, and a rear garden enclosed by composite fencing which the subject of this appeal. Holly Close is a cul-de-sac, characterised by open frontages. The appeal property looks over open green space to the front, with intervening footpaths leading to other roads on the estate. Combined with the hedges within front gardens and the notable mature shrubbery and trees within both the public domain and private areas, this gives the area a spacious and verdant character. 6. I am aware that there is an extant planning permission1 for the installation of a timber fence on the appeal site, which means that the principle of a fence being erected at the appeal site is not a matter of contention between the main parties. 1 24/03427/F Appeal Decision 6001480 2 Whilst not characteristic of the street frontage on Holly Close, I have seen the examples provided by the appellant of high fences and brick walls on the wider estate. Notwithstanding this, brickwork utilised more often is sympathetic to the materials of the host dwelling and the prevailing natural tones, vertical emphasis and timber composition of fencing ensures general consistency in design and a largely muted presence where such boundary treatments exist. 7. However, the height, extent and horizontal emphasis of the fencing erected on the appeal site, together with its light oak composite finish give the fence a stark appearance. This is particularly noticeable on Holly Close due to its prominent corner position and in longer range views including from the nearby green space. Consequently, the development does not assimilate with the verdant and spacious characteristics of the immediate surroundings. 8. I acknowledge that it is also proposed to add landscaping in front of the composite fence. However, soft landscaping would likely take time to establish, and no substantive details have been provided about the extent of such landscaping including what could be provided to sections where the composite fence sits next to the hard surfaced driveways at the property. Indeed, the planting depicted in the ‘artist’s impression’ suggests that the planting envisaged would not be sufficient to screen the fence. Therefore, I am not persuaded that planting would overcome the harm identified. 9. Overall, the development has a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. In that regard, it conflicts with the requirements in Policy ESD15 of the Cherwell Local Plan Part 1 (2015) and saved Policy C28 of the Cherwell Local Plan 1996 (1996) (LP 1996) for new development to complement and enhance the character of its context through sensitive siting, layout and high quality design and for external finish materials to be sympathetic to the character and context of that development. It is also contrary to Paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework which requires that developments add to the overall quality of the area and are sympathetic to local character. 10. The appellant has also referred to saved Policy C30 of the LP 1996. However, a copy of this policy has not been provided and there is nothing to suggest that it includes provisions which override the conflict with the other identified policies above. Other Matters 11. The appellant has expressed that the new fence provides both security and privacy. However, there is nothing to suggest that these aims could not be achieved through a scheme which has a less harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. 12. I note that there has been a high level of support locally for the new fence through third-party representations and that a petition in its favour was submitted as part of the application. In addition to comments made in support of the design and comparisons with the condition of gardens nearby, reference is also made to the sustainability of the composite material, reduced maintenance requirements, that it would be wasteful to remove the fence, and to improved public safety following the removal of a previous ‘unsafe’ wall. The Council has also confirmed that there would be no harmful effect on neighbouring living conditions or highway safety. Appeal Decision 6001480 3 However, none of these matters are of a magnitude which justify the harm identified under the main issue. Conclusion and Recommendation 13. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. E Clifford APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 14. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. M Russell INSPECTOR