This is a retrospective application for the erection of a 6ft fence at the boundary of our house replacing an existing 3m high hedge

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 16 June 2026 by Lucy Cuthbertson BSc Decision by T Law BSc MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 24 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6007996 1 Victoria Road, Urmston, Trafford M41 5BZ • 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 Paul Menzies against the decision of Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council. • The application Ref is 117790/HHA/25. • The development proposed is described as “this is a retrospective application for the erection of a 6ft fence at the boundary of our house replacing an existing 3m high hedge.” 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 Matters 3. The appeal is retrospective, as the boundary fencing and partial trellis have already been erected on site. I note that there is some discrepancy between the submitted drawings and the development as constructed, in relation to the trellis element on the Victoria Road frontage. As the drawings do not fully reflect the development as built, I have assessed the appeal based on the submitted plans. 4. A revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published in August 2026. In this instance, the issues most relevant to the appeal are unaffected by the revisions to the Framework. I am therefore satisfied that there is no requirement to seek further submissions on the revised Framework, and that no party would be disadvantaged by this. Main Issue 5. The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. Reasons for the Recommendation 6. The appeal site occupies a prominent corner position at the junction of Victoria Road and Flixton Road within an established residential area characterised by a relatively open and verdant street scene. Boundary treatments in the immediate vicinity are typically low in height and comprise low walls, hedging or open frontages, which collectively contribute to the spacious and informal character of the area. Appeal Decision 6007996 2 7. The appeal scheme introduces a substantial length of close-boarded timber fencing, positioned directly adjacent to the highway along Flixton Road. Due to its height, uninterrupted form and solid construction, the fencing appears as a visually dominant and enclosing feature within this prominent corner location. 8. I recognise that the appellant has highlighted that the boundary previously comprised a taller hedge. However, a hedge would typically provide a softer and more visually permeable edge, making a positive contribution to the verdant character of the area. By contrast, the appeal fencing presents a uniform, stark and visually assertive form of boundary treatment. 9. The appellant also refers to other examples of similar boundary treatments within the wider area. I have limited details of the approval of these boundary treatments and therefore cannot determine whether they or their context is directly comparable. However, from the evidence before me and my site visit, the prevailing and defining character in the immediate street scene is one of relatively low and visually permeable boundaries. The appeal proposal, due to its extent and siting at a prominent corner, would appear incongruous in this context and would erode the openness that currently characterises the locality. 10. Furthermore, while I acknowledge that the trellis element would allow some degree of permeability, it remains of significant height and contributes to the overall sense of enclosure along the frontage. When considered alongside the solid fencing, the development results in a continuous and visually dominant boundary treatment that would appear intrusive within the street scene 11. Overall, I find that the height, extent, siting and solid appearance of the fencing, together with the trellis element, results in a dominant, incongruous and visually intrusive form of development that fails to respect the prevailing character of the area. The proposal would therefore harm the character and appearance of the street scene. The adverse effects identified under the main issue substantially outweigh any benefits derived from the proposed development. 12. The development is contrary to Policy JP-P1 of Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan (adopted 2024), Trafford Council's adopted Supplementary Planning Document SPD4: A Guide for Designing House Extensions and Alterations, as well as the Framework. Other Matters 13. I have had regard to the appellant’s comments concerning personal circumstances, including matters of privacy and security. While I recognise these concerns, they do not outweigh the harm identified to the character and appearance of the area. I also note the appellant’s comments in relation to the circumstances leading to the removal of previous vegetation and the timing of landscaping works. Nevertheless, the planning merits of the scheme must be assessed on the basis of the development as proposed and its impact on the surrounding area. Conclusion and Recommendation 14. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. Lucy Cuthbertson Appeal Decision 6007996 3 APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 15. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. T Law INSPECTOR