Erection of fencing to front and side boundaries and erection of timber gates to front boundary

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 17 February 2026 by Richard Snow BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 27 February 2026 Appeal Ref: 6001408 65 Highway Road, Thurmaston, Leicestershire LE4 8FR • 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 Pritpal Singh against the decision of Charnwood Borough Council. • The application Ref is P/25/1585/2. • The development proposed is the erection of fencing to front and side boundaries and erection of timber gates to front boundary. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. The description of development differs between the application form and the decision notice. The above has been taken from the application form which adequately describes the development. I have removed the word “retrospective” which is not a description of development. 3. The council has now adopted the Charnwood Local Plan 2021-2037 which replaces the Charnwood Local Plan Core Strategy 2011-2028 and the saved policies of the Charnwood Local Plan 2004. Both parties make reference to emerging Policy DS5: High Quality Design in their submissions. This policy has now been adopted as Policy DS4 with a modification to include an additional bullet point relating to the need to conserve, restore and enhance the natural environment. As this additional requirement of the policy is not determinative in relation to the development proposed, I have assessed the appeal in relation to Policy DS4 of the newly adopted Local Plan without inviting comments from the parties. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 5. The appeal site is a detached bungalow in a prominent location at the junction of Highway Road and Red Hill Lane within a cluster of predominantly single storey properties. The wider area has a varied character derived from a mix of one and two-storey dwellings set on fairly consistent frontages. Front boundaries are a mix of predominantly low walls or fencing and some hedging. To the south along Earls Appeal Decision 6001408 2 Way, the alignment of properties is more diverse and front gardens are generally more open in nature, although some enclosure with fencing is evident in places. 6. I observed from my site visit that the proposed fencing along the Red Hill Lane and Highway Road frontages is in situ, although the proposed gates across the vehicular access to Highway Road had not been installed. The fencing has been sited close to the highway boundaries on both road frontages and is formed of timber panels between concrete posts. The fencing to the Highway Road frontage includes curved trellising above solid panels. The plans indicate that its height extends to 2m along both frontages. 7. Due to its height and siting, the fencing is an unduly prominent feature, particularly in views from the south, where both frontages are readily visible in the street scene. It presents a harsh, solid and dominant appearance with the trellis feature doing little to reduce its impact on the street scene. The proximity of the fencing to the highway has removed any opportunity to provide any meaningful landscaping in front of the fence. 8. The fencing along the Red Hill Lane frontage forms a stark and obtrusive feature in a street scene which is generally characterised by more open front gardens. The fencing along Highway Road obscures the majority of the frontage of the bungalow, providing a degree of enclosure out of character with the wider area. Combined, the lengthy expanses of fencing create a visually jarring feature at the road junction. If installed, the proposed solid timber gates would further compound the dominance of the development, the visual enclosure of the property and the harmful effect on the street scene. 9. A fence has been erected around the garden of no 64 Highway Road, opposite the appeal site. The evidence before me suggests that this fence has been erected relatively recently and without planning permission. I accordingly give little weight to its presence in my decision. 10. Several other examples of fencing in the vicinity of the appeal site have been drawn to my attention, and I viewed each during my site visit. None of the examples provided include fencing wrapping around a corner plot along both the side and front boundaries in such close proximity to the carriageway as that erected at the appeal site. They are accordingly not directly comparable. I do not have full details of the circumstances of those other cases save for the fencing at 55 Sandiacre Drive which has the benefit of a 2019 planning permission. For the same reasons however, this fence is not directly comparable to the appeal proposals. 11. Reference is made to previous fences at the appeal site. However, it appears that these fences were set back from the road, behind established landscaping, which considerably softened their appearance. Photographs provided by the appellant show that the new fence on the Highway Road frontage appears to be taller than the one it replaced, to the extent that it largely screens the front elevation of no 65 from public view, preventing it contributing to the street scene and unduly enclosing the street. 12. Taking all these matters into account, the proposals introduce a visually dominant and discordant feature in the street scene which detracts from the character of the wider area. As such, they conflict with Policy DS4 of the Charnwood Local Plan (2021-2037) which, amongst other things, requires new development to respect and enhance the character of the area. Appeal Decision 6001408 3 Other Matters 13. Whilst I acknowledge the appellant’s concerns that a landscaping strip outside the previous fencing was a maintenance liability and attracted litter, such features are commonplace and can provide visual relief to the street scene. In any case, no such landscaping strip is now proposed. The lack of objections to the application holds neutral weight in my assessment. 14. The need for privacy in rear gardens is acknowledged, and I note the council’s ‘Design’ Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) recognises this. The SPD also advises that in considering the design and siting of boundary treatments, a balance should be struck between privacy, safety and aesthetics. For the reasons given above, I am not satisfied that the balance has been appropriately struck in this case, or that the total enclosure of both roadside frontages is required to secure an appropriate level of privacy. This is evidenced from the open or relatively low front boundary treatments of the majority of nearby properties. Conclusion 15. For the reasons given above, the proposals do not accord with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations that indicate I should take a decision other than in accordance with it. Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed. Richard Snow INSPECTOR