Erection of a 2.4m acoustic garden fence

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 22 June 2026 by E Clifford BA (Hons) MA Decision by M Russell BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 8th September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6007744 Crossways, Wignall Street, Lawford, Essex CO11 2JL • 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 Timothy Bichara against the decision of Tendring District Council. • The application Ref is 26/00170/FULHH. • The development proposed is the erection of a 2.4m acoustic garden fence. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Preliminary Matter 3. A revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published in August 2026. It includes changes in regard to heritage matters with specific regard to the degrees of harm. That said, and in regard to the main issue of the appeal, the actions of finding harm to a designated heritage asset is not materially different from the previous iteration of the Framework. I am therefore satisfied that I can proceed without further consultation with the main parties since, with the above in mind, their respective cases would not be prejudiced. Applications for costs 4. A costs application has been submitted by the appellant. This is the subject of a separate recommendation. Main Issue 5. The main issue is whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Lawford Conservation Area (CA) and the setting of the nearby Grade II Listed ‘The Kings Arms’. Reasons for the Recommendation 6. The Lawford Conservation Area was first designated in 1969 and derives much of its special interest from the historic core at the western end of the village, Lawford Hall and park and the Parish Church. Along Wignall Street, where the appeal site is located, there is a concentration of surviving historic buildings where the origins of Appeal Decision 6007744 2 the settlement are thought to have begun. Here the generous spacing between the residential plots and regular roadside position of some of the dwellings conveys a semi-rural character as the road leads out of Lawford. Whilst there are a variety of boundary treatments in this part of the CA where fencing sits close to and parallel with the street, it is generally low level, such as the existing picket fencing at the appeal site. 7. Located on the opposite side of the road to the appeal site is The Kings Arms, a Grade II listed former public house which has been converted into a residential dwelling. The Kings Arms is listed for its special architectural and historic interest to which its timber-frame, painted brick facades and clay tile roof all contribute. As a roadside building, it is visually prominent in the street, and its distinctive pink rendering is similar to that on the appeal dwelling. This is appreciable in long views along Wignall Street. Together with the appeal site’s generous proportions, mature hedging, and the discreet design of fencing at the roadside, the spacing and verdancy at this point makes a positive contribution to the CA and the setting of The Kings Arms. 8. The existing fence, which sits in the position of the proposed acoustic fence is of a height often seen within a residential context. Whilst the existing hedge ensures it has a discreet presence; it is nevertheless visible from the street where gaps in the hedging exist. 9. Whilst the hedging would also filter views of the proposed fence, the gaps in the hedge both on Wignall Street and Hungerdown Lane would reveal its substantial height and solidarity to the extent that it would be even more notable from the street than the existing situation appearing significantly at odds with the domestic scale of other fencing in the area. Moreover, even if the height of the fence would be lower than the height of the existing hedge level, in the event that the hedge was to be removed, reduced in height or was to die this would only further increase the acoustic fence’s incongruous presence within the street. 10. Consequently, the proposed development would be in stark contrast to the overriding low-level presence of fencing and spacious character of the CA, regardless of its position set back from the boundary with the highway and the layered arrangement of boundary treatments at the site. This would detract from the spacious and semi-rural characteristics of the CA and would also be present in views within the setting of The Kings Arms. 11. The appellant has suggested that the retention and maintenance of the existing hedge could be controlled through condition, a Unilateral Undertaking (UU) or a Hedge Maintenance and Management Plan. I am in agreement with the Council, and the findings in appeal ref APP/P1560/D/25/3368714 (the previous appeal), that a condition would likely be difficult to monitor and enforce in the long term and thus would not adequately mitigate the identified harm. Furthermore, there is no UU or management plan before me in order to assess whether it would be sufficiently precise to provide sufficient mitigation in the long term. 12. Under Sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1991, I have a duty to have special regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest and to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area. Given the above, I find that the proposed Appeal Decision 6007744 3 development would result in harm to the significance of the CA and the setting of The Kings Arms. The harm should be weighed against any public benefits resulting from the proposal in line with Policy HE6 of the Framework. This is a matter I return to below. 13. The proposed development would fail to preserve the character or appearance of the CA and the setting of the nearby Grade II listed ‘The Kings Arms’. In that regard, it would be contrary to Policies SP7 and SPL3 of the Tendring District Local Plan 2013-2033 and Beyond Section 1- North Essex Authorities Shared Strategic Section 1 Plan (2021) and Policies PPL8 and PPL9 of the Tendring District Local Plan 2011-2033 and Beyond Section 2 (2022) which collectively require all new development to protect and enhance assets of historical value and the special character and appearance of conservation areas, and respond positively to local character and context. 14. It would also be contrary to the requirements in Policies HE4, and HE9 of the Framework to avoid harm to the significance of heritage assets and to consider a Conservation Area’s special architectural or historic interest in the design of development. Other Considerations 15. The Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) set out under S149 of the Equality Act 2010 which requires me to consider the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it. I have also had regard to the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 and recognise that the dismissal of the appeal would interfere with some of the appellants’ rights under Article 8 of the First Protocol. Article 8(1) states that everyone has a right to respect for their private and family life, their home and their correspondence. 16. I agree with the Inspector for the previous appeal that a quiet garden is desirable and would be likely to be of significant benefit for an occupier of the appeal site with sensory sensitivities and neurodivergent needs. However, no detailed information has been provided with the appeal in terms of the specifics of any such personal circumstances in this case. Furthermore, the noise assessment before me (Sound Acoustics – 27 January 2026) only details noise levels recorded at the site. There is no detailed specification on the fence or estimated noise levels following installation to suggest it would achieve a notable reduction in noise levels when compared with the existing situation. 17. In the circumstances, there is no evidence to suggest that the proposed fence would provide the desired benefits for a member of the household with sensory needs, even if the alternatives considered by the appellant would also not achieve the desired functional outcome. These factors somewhat dimmish the weight that I afford to the personal circumstances put forward. Planning Balance, Conclusion and Recommendation 18. I have found that the proposal would fail to preserve the character or appearance of the CA and the setting of the Grade II listed ‘The Kings Arms’. Given my findings above on personal circumstances, there would not be public benefits of sufficient weight to outweigh the harm identified under the main issue, bearing in mind the Appeal Decision 6007744 4 considerable importance and weight I must attach to the harm and the substantial weight I must give to the conservation of the identified heritage assets. 19. Therefore, in weighing the personal circumstances in the balance, a refusal of planning permission is a proportionate and necessary approach to preserve the significance of the CA and the setting of ‘The Kings Arms’. For the same reasons, and even accounting for the site’s location within a settlement, the adverse effects identified substantially outweigh any benefits derived from the development. 20. Therefore, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed and the protection of the public interest cannot be achieved by means that are less interfering of the appellant and the specified household member’s human rights. E Clifford APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 21. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. M Russell INSPECTOR