Erection of a fence adjacent to the roadside (above the height of 1m) and relocation of driveway

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 13 January 2026 by C Cooper-Young MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 04 February 2026 Appeal Ref: 6001710 61 Rugby Road, Poole BH17 7HL • 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 Lucy Lees against the decision of Bournemouth Christchurch and Poole Council. • The application Ref is P/25/03040/HOU. • The development proposed is erection of a fence adjacent to the roadside (above the height of 1m) and relocation of driveway. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a fence adjacent to the roadside (above the height of 1m) and relocation of driveway at 61 Rugby Road, Poole BH17 7HL in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P/25/03040/HOU, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following condition. 1) The development hereby permitted shall be retained in accordance with the following approved drawing Nos: PP-14244619v1 (Location Plan), 1672.02A (Site Plan), 1672.04A (Proposed Floor Plan & Elevations). Preliminary Matters 2. The description of development was changed subsequent to an email from the Council to the appellant dated 14 August 2025. I have therefore used the revised description in the header above, as shown on the Council’s decision notice, rather than the wording that was used on the original application form. However, ‘retrospective application’ is not an act of development and as such, I have removed the reference to this in the description above. 3. In determining this appeal, I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) contained in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, which sets out the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation, and to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it. Disability is a relevant protected characteristic to which the PSED applies. 4. The fence has been erected and the driveway installed; as such, the application is seeking retrospective consent. 5. The application form included the name of the Local Planning Authority in the site location address. For clarity, I have used the address provided on the Council’s Decision Notice in the heading, above. Appeal Decision 6001710 2 Main Issue 6. The main issue is the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 7. The character of the immediate area is predominantly comprised of uniformly and evenly spaced residential bungalows. These dwellings have a relatively consistent linear front build line, with a variety of hard and soft landscaping to their frontages. 8. No 61 Rugby Road is a detached brick-built bungalow on a large corner plot fronting Rugby Road, and adjacent to Coventry Crescent. The dwelling is surrounded by gardens and a driveway has been installed forward of the front entrance to the property. 9. A close-boarded fence of approximately 1.8m has been erected to the side and forward of the principal elevation of No 61, in order to enclose part of the garden area adjacent to No 59 Rugby Road. The fence is located approximately 0.5m back from the existing low boundary wall and during my site inspection I observed that hedge planting had been undertaken in the intervening space. 10. I have been directed to examples of boundary treatment by both the Council and the appellant. During my site inspection I was able to observe similar examples of fencing forming the boundary of a number of corner plots on Coventry Crescent, York Road and Sopers Lane, all exceeding 1m. These examples did not adversely impact the otherwise open and spacious character and appearance of the area. As such, I find the scheme before me to be consistent with the varying character of boundary treatment in the locality. 11. The positioning and nature of the plot is such that any enclosure necessary to afford private enjoyment of the front and side garden area would be prominent and visible. The height of the fence and its general appearance is typical of a modern domestic enclosure. 12. I therefore conclude that the proposal is neither overbearing nor oppressive and does not result in a harmful impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers. The development is therefore compliant with Policy PP27 of the Poole Local Plan 2018, which, amongst other things, seeks to prevent development that would result in harmful impacts on the amenity of local residents. Conditions 13. For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of clarity, I have imposed a plans condition. Conclusion 14. For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed. C Cooper-Young INSPECTOR