Retrospective application for existing entrance gates and boundary fencing

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 24 March 2026 by J Davis BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 01 April 2026 Appeal Ref: 6005068 Hatchgate House, Mill Lane, Yalding, Kent, ME18 6AR • 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 Jamie Shead against the decision of Maidstone Borough Council. • The application Ref is 25/504436/FUL. • The development proposed is described as ‘retrospective application for existing entrance gates and boundary fencing’. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. The development, which comprises of boundary fencing, entrance gates with associated brick piers and walls has been completed and the appeal is therefore in relation to obtaining retrospective permission for the works. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 4. The appeal property is an isolated residential dwelling centrally located within a large plot on the eastern side of Mill Lane. Mill Lane is a narrow lane which is rural in character and appearance with adjacent field boundaries mostly enclosed by hedging. To the north of the site are agricultural style buildings, enclosed by metal palisade security railings. Other features in the local area include polytunnels and other mainly agricultural related accesses and development. 5. The Council Residential Extensions Supplementary Planning Document (2009) (SPD) whilst non statutory, sets out useful design guidance for householder development. In relation to dwellings in the countryside, it advises that unsympathetic boundary treatment (such as close boarded fences) should be avoided as they are urban in character and detract from the openness of the countryside. 6. From the evidence before me, prior to the construction of the fencing, gates and brick piers and walls, the frontage of the appeal site was defined by hedging which assimilated into its rural surroundings. The development that has been constructed Appeal Decision 6005068 2 extends along the frontage of the appeal property, resulting in a large expanse of fencing panels either side of the main entrance which is defined by piers, walls and close boarded gates. 7. The boundary that has been erected, appears as a substantial, solid, permanent and formal means of enclosure which is highly urbanising in appearance as a result of its materials along with its height, length and overall extent. It is therefore contrary to the design guidance for boundary treatments set out in the SPD. 8. The development is set back only slightly from Mill Lane and is separated from it by a narrow verge and drainage ditch leaving little opportunity for meaningful planting that might otherwise soften its appearance. It is highly prominent and visually imposing when viewed from Mill Lane due to its height, extensive length and proximity to the narrow lane. The development stands out as an inappropriate and incongruous form of development which fails to assimilate into its countryside setting, causing harm to the rural character and appearance of the site and area. 9. There are large agricultural style buildings to the north of the appeal site. The metal palisade security fencing whilst open slatted, also fails to assimilate well into its rural setting. However, the Council confirm in their officer report that there are no records of the Council having granted permission for the development and therefore its presence should not justify the development that has taken place. I acknowledge that the boundary that has been erected at the appeal property is viewed in context with the agricultural style buildings and other agricultural related structures, but these are a common sight in the countryside and consequently do not significantly detract from its character and appearance. 10. I acknowledge the appellant’s need for security, privacy and safe access, although I have not been made aware of any incidences that may have taken place to date. However, there are likely to be other potential means of enclosure which would provide for similar security, amenity protection and access whilst improving the aesthetics of the site. 11. The appellant has drawn my attention to several examples in the local area of boundary enclosures and I observed several of these during my site visit. Some of these examples, particularly along Benover Road are not directly relevant to the appeal proposal as their context is slightly different, being located along a stretch of road which is less rural in character and closer to clusters of other dwellings and buildings. 12. There are some similarities between the appeal site and the example of fencing and entrance walls along Vicarage Road, although those fencing panels are mostly softened by hedging albeit on the inside of the fence. I also acknowledge the examples cited on Symonds Lane which comprise a range of materials including fencing, gates, walls and railings. However, I have not been provided with any details of the planning permissions or the circumstances relating to those boundary structures. I therefore cannot be certain of what they replaced or what circumstances applied in those cases. I therefore place limited weight on these examples. 13. The appellant has referred to appeal decisions in other Council districts in Kent. These are clearly remote from the appeal site and similarly I do not have details of their precise location, the character of the area in which they are sited or whether there are any similarities with the appeal development. The appeal development Appeal Decision 6005068 3 has been considered on its own merits and having regard to its particular circumstances. Limited weight is therefore given to this consideration. 14. The appellant highlights that the Council were content that the development has not resulted in any amenity concerns in relation to other residential occupiers and was found to be acceptable in terms of highway considerations and flood risk. However, these are not benefits of the scheme as they are to be expected. 15. I therefore conclude that the development has had a harmful effect on the rural character and appearance of the area and is therefore contrary to Policies LRPSP9, LPRQD4, LPRHOU11, LPRSP15 of the Maidstone Borough Local Plan Review 2024. Together and amongst other matters, these policies require development to be high quality, not to result in significant harm to the rural character and appearance of the area, to be of a type, siting, materials and design which would maintain or where possible, enhance local distinctiveness and the local, natural or historic character of the area. The development also conflicts with the SPD as described above and the high quality design objectives set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (2024). Conclusion 16. I have found that the development conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole, and there are no other material considerations to outweigh that finding. Therefore, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. J Davis INSPECTOR