Garden fence below 2 metres in height - required as constant trespassing through front garden and have major safety concerns. I had originally asked Barratts to install a fence or bushes due to my concerns about lack of privacy - they advised they wouldn’t pay if I decided to put up a fence - I did pay and fence has been up since 2020. I checked with neighbours both sides. ” Decision

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 21 April 2026 by P Storey BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 15 May 2026 Appeal Ref: 6003725 4 Perkins Walk, Spennymoor, Durham DL16 7FZ • 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 Ms Julie Bestford against the decision of Durham County Council. • The application Ref is DM/25/00921/FPA. • The development proposed is described as: “Garden fence below 2 metres in height - required as constant trespassing through front garden and have major safety concerns. I had originally asked Barratts to install a fence or bushes due to my concerns about lack of privacy - they advised they wouldn’t pay if I decided to put up a fence - I did pay and fence has been up since 2020. I checked with neighbours both sides. ” Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. At the time of my visit, a fence corresponding with the description and plans of the development subject to the appeal had been erected at the site. Whilst the fence I observed appeared broadly consistent with the proposed details, I have determined the appeal based on the submitted plans, which formed the basis of the Council’s decision. Main Issue 3. The main issue is whether the development would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 4. The appeal site is a semi-detached house forming part of a modern residential estate. It faces directly onto a spacious area of publicly accessible open space, which is generally bordered by low-level boundary treatments, hedgerows or vegetation. Consequently, there is a collective sense of openness and visual permeability to the principal elevations of the dwellings facing this space, allowing it to read as an integral and uninterrupted part of the wider streetscene. 5. The appeal development comprises a close-boarded timber fence enclosing the front garden, positioned forward of the principal elevation and adjacent to a public footpath. The evidence indicates that such forms of enclosure were specifically restricted by conditions of the original planning permission for the estate, in order to preserve its open character. Appeal Decision 6003725 2 6. In this regard, the development introduces a notably more solid and enclosing form of boundary treatment than is otherwise characteristic of the surroundings. Its height, siting and solid form create a visual barrier between the dwelling and the open space, contrasting with the otherwise open and loosely defined boundary treatments that characterise this part of the estate. Consequently, the development introduces an undue sense of enclosure when viewed from the open space, adjacent footpath, and from nearby dwellings, diminishing the spatial and visual qualities that positively contribute to the character of the area. 7. I note the presence of another fence opposite the site. However, as referenced in the Council’s evidence, the lawfulness of that structure is currently in question. In the absence of evidence confirming that it is lawful or forms part of an accepted pattern of development, I afford it only very limited weight in my decision. 8. The appellant has advanced a range of arguments in support of the development, including matters relating to personal circumstances, security, and a local level of support for the proposal. I acknowledge that the fence may provide increased privacy and security, and I have taken account of the stated benefits to the appellant’s mental health and wellbeing. However, these considerations do not alter the spatial or visual effects of the development on the surrounding environment, which is the principal issue before me. 9. I have had due regard to the need to consider the appellant’s circumstances in the context of the Public Sector Equality Duty. Nevertheless, the evidence before me does not demonstrate that the identified personal benefits would be sufficient to outweigh the clear and demonstrable harm to the character and appearance of the area, and the resulting conflict with the development plan. 10. I have also considered the appellant’s assertions regarding advice received and the existence of local support. However, there is no substantive evidence before me, such as formal consultation responses or documented agreement from the Council, to lend significant weight to these statements. Consequently, I attach only limited weight to these matters. Although no specific harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers has been identified, this is a neutral factor that does not weigh in favour of the proposal. 11. For these reasons, I conclude that the development would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area and conflict with Policy 29 of the County Durham Plan, Adopted 2020, which seeks to ensure development is well designed and contributes positively to an area’s character, identity, townscape and landscape features. It also conflicts with the relevant provisions of the Residential Amenity Standards Supplementary Planning Document, January 2023, and the National Planning Policy Framework, which have similar aims. Conclusion 12. For the reasons given, the proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole, and there are no considerations to indicate that it should be determined other than in accordance with the plan. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. P Storey INSPECTOR