Removal of 18m x 1.6m bush and 11m x 1.2m fence with 1m garden wide gate to be replaced by a 29m x 1.9m timber wood fence To complete the full boundary - Including the existing 4m wooden car gate and 1m walk gate Combining a complete length of 34m from number 43 to number 47 with an overall height of 1.9m Wooden fence panels screwed into wooden posts with wooden gravel boards Inside of the site boundary posts set in 1m hole filled with fast setting post mix

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 28 January 2026 by R Cahalane BA(Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 11 February 2026 Appeal Ref: 6002008 45 Queen Mary Avenue, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 5PL • 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 Miss Paula Campbell against the decision of Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council. • The application Ref is 25/00499/RET. • The development proposed was described as: “Removal of 18m x 1.6m bush and 11m x 1.2m fence with 1m garden wide gate to be replaced by a 29m x 1.9m timber wood fence To complete the full boundary - Including the existing 4m wooden car gate and 1m walk gate Combining a complete length of 34m from number 43 to number 47 with an overall height of 1.9m Wooden fence panels screwed into wooden posts with wooden gravel boards Inside of the site boundary posts set in 1m hole filled with fast setting post mix.” Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for replacement of bush, fence and gate with wooden boundary fencing and gates at an overall height of 1.9m at 45 Queen Mary Avenue, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 5PL in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00499/RET, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following condition: 1) The development hereby permitted relates to the following approved plans: Location Plan dated 02 March 2025 (Ref No: TQRQM25061140317862); Block Plan dated 30 June 2025 (Ref No: TQRQM25061143005948). Preliminary Matters 2. I have taken the development description from the decision notice rather than the application form. Whilst the latter description, as included in the above banner heading, provides much useful detail, the decision notice description is more concise and accurately describes the appeal development. During my site visit, I noted that such development has been completed. I have however deleted the word “retrospective” from my decision, as that is not a form of development. 3. The officer report indicates conflict with Policy EM1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 (adopted 2016) (BDLP). This policy is not cited in the reason for refusal, but is relevant to the appeal development. I have thus determined this appeal having regard to it, which does not prejudice the parties. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Appeal Decision 6002008 2 Reasons 5. The appeal site (No 45) comprises a two-storey end-terraced dwelling. Its side elevation faces Queen Mary Avenue, and it therefore forms a corner plot. The higher and longer section of fencing subject of this appeal mainly runs along the footway of this thoroughfare. It then turns away towards the front boundary of No 45, which faces a long and narrow area of open space positioned along the road. The fencing and gate directly in front of No 45 are of notably lower height. 6. I observed the higher section of appeal fencing to have a darker wood colour than No 45’s lower enclosure. This darker finish is of similar hue as the nearby brick elevations. In any event, there is a wooden vehicular access gate and surrounding fencing immediately adjacent to and slightly higher than the side boundary fencing subject of this appeal. Longer views of the overall appeal enclosure are also framed by the nearby bus shelter facing Queen Mary Avenue. Moreover, the higher section of fencing faces a section of footway that is wider than most other sections in the vicinity along the road, which somewhat tempers its prominence. 7. It is put to me that the appeal fencing is not appropriate mitigation for the loss of the previous hedgerow. There are however very limited details before me in respect of that shrubbery to determine the extent of contribution it made to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Notwithstanding this, the evidence before me suggests that No 45 was not devoid of some tall wooden boundary enclosure prior to implementation of the appeal enclosure. 8. Surrounding residential boundaries mainly consist of hedging and low brick walls, with also some low fencing along frontages. However, given the above context, I have found that the siting and appearance of the appeal enclosure does not form an intrusive feature in the street scene. Moreover, the development provides a reasonable level of privacy for No 45, bearing in mind its siting relative to the nearby road levels and bus stop. 9. I therefore conclude that the appeal development complies with Policies EM1 and EM10 of the BDLP. These policies require, amongst other things, development to be sympathetic to the character and visual quality of the area concerned, and to respect the local environment. Conditions 10. As the appeal development is retrospective, there is no need to impose a time limit condition, or a condition governing external materials. A condition clarifying the approved plans is however necessary. As there is no demonstrable evidence before me to indicate that the implementation of the appeal development harmed biodiversity, wild birds or other wildlife, a mitigation condition in respect of these matters cannot be justified as being necessary. Conclusion 11. For the above reasons, the appeal is allowed. R Cahalane INSPECTOR