New boundary fence

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 February 2026 By E Everitt BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 6 March 2026 Appeal Ref: 6002945 3 Wedgwood Road, Bedford MK41 7NW • 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 V Sembhi against the decision of Bedford Borough Council. • The application Ref is 25/01663/S73A. • The development proposed is new boundary fence. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a new boundary fence at 3 Wedgwood Road, Bedford MK41 7NW in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/01663/S73A, subject to the following condition: 1) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing no. 44425_02 Rev 05 Proposed Arrangements. Preliminary Matters 2. The application form indicates that the development has already been carried out, and during my site visit I saw that a fence has been erected. However, the development on the ground does not appear to correspond fully with the submitted plan. For clarity, my assessment is based on the plan before me, rather than what has been constructed. Any works undertaken that are not in accordance with the plan are a matter for the Council to pursue separately with the appellant. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Reasons 4. The appeal property is a detached two-storey dwelling located on a triangular plot. It is located within an area which is residential in character, predominantly comprising detached and semi-detached dwellings. Dwellings in the immediate vicinity of the appeal site are arranged in a staggered layout, set back from the road by varying distances. In most cases, dwellings are broadly perpendicular to the highway with driveways and gardens to the front and private garden space to the rear. In contrast, the appeal property is broadly parallel to the highway with a driveway to the front and private garden space to the rear and side. The flank elevation of the neighbouring two-storey property forms the rear boundary of the plot. Appeal Decision 6002945 2 5. The surrounding area has a relatively open character, albeit the staggered layout of the buildings restricts this. Boundary walls and fences enclose some gardens in the surrounding area, including those which border the highway. These boundary treatments echo and emphasise the staggered layout of the buildings. 6. The proposed boundary fence would enclose the majority of the open space to the side of the dwelling to create an enlarged private garden. As a result, the open space adjacent to the highway would be substantially reduced in size. 7. Even so, I am satisfied that the openness and character of the area would not be materially diminished. This is because it is evident from my observations on site that the proposed fence would be comparable to fencing which surrounds the gardens on a number of corner plots in the vicinity in terms of materials, height and proximity to the highway. While I do not have full details of those cases before me, the fencing, nevertheless, forms part of the character and appearance of the area and complements the established staggered pattern of development. The existing fencing within the local area also demonstrates that fencing, such as that proposed, can respect the character and appearance of the area without having a detrimental impact. 8. Moreover, a degree of openness would continue to be maintained due to the remaining gap between the fence and the highway shown on the submitted plan. Against this background and taking into account the nearby two-storey built development which already limits the openness of the appeal site to some degree and would screen the fence in some views, the fence would not appear unduly prominent or detract from the existing character of the area. 9. Consequently, although boundary treatments visible from the public realm in Wedgwood Road are predominantly brick, the appeal proposal would not appear incongruous because its siting, height and materials would be akin to that of nearby boundary treatments. In this regard, it would complement the character and distinctiveness of the surrounding area, which, whilst relatively open, is characterised by staggered built form echoed and emphasised by fencing and other boundary treatments. 10. Taking account of the above, I conclude that the proposed development would not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. As such, the proposal accords with the relevant provisions of Policies 28S, 29 and 30 of the Bedford Borough Local Plan 2030 (adopted 2020). Among other things, these policies seek development which complements the character of the area in which it is located, respects the context within which it sits and promotes local distinctiveness. Other Matters 11. The other matters raised by the Council in relation to alternative forms of development and permitted development rights relating to hard surfacing, as well as the lack of a fallback position and the highlighted legal judgement do not lead me to an alternative conclusion on the main issue. Conditions 12. In the interests of certainty, I have imposed a condition specifying the approved plan for identification purposes. Appeal Decision 6002945 3 13. Although no specific wording is before me, the appellant suggests that any discrepancies between the submitted plan and the development carried out could be addressed by an adequately worded plans condition. However, as my assessment of the proposal is based on the plan before me, I consider it necessary, in the interests of safeguarding the character and appearance of the area, to impose a condition requiring compliance with the submitted plan. Conclusion 14. For the reasons given above, the proposal accords with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be allowed. E Everitt INSPECTOR