Wooden hit and miss fence and concrete posts with gravel border (to match pre-existing fence line already in situ, and to match the rest of the estate) to replace the pre - existing boundary hedge that surrounded the side garden

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 2 June 2026 by Ellie Nutman BA (Hons) Decision by M J Francis BA (Hons) MA MSc MCIfA an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 30th July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6008677 16 Beechwood Avenue, Hartford, Northwich CW8 3AR • 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 Miss Charlotte Spragg against the decision of Cheshire West and Chester Council. • The application Ref is 25/03761/FUL. • The development proposed is a wooden hit and miss fence and concrete posts with gravel border (to match pre-existing fence line already in situ, and to match the rest of the estate) to replace the pre - existing boundary hedge that surrounded the side garden. 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 development was in situ during my site visit and, as it reflects the description provided on the application form, I have determined the appeal on the basis of what exists on site. 4. I note that the appeal site is situated within the Green Belt. The Council has not identified the development as inappropriate development and has raised no objection on Green Belt grounds. Having regard to the nature and scale of the proposal, I have no reason to disagree and therefore do not consider it necessary to address Green Belt matters further in this decision. Main Issue 5. The main issue of the appeal is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons for the Recommendation 6. The area is predominantly residential, and dwellings feature compact gardens and driveways to their frontages. These are typically open in nature or feature low boundary treatments and hedging. 7. The appeal site is located at the end of the cul-de-sac and is orientated away from the street. It is accessed via a curved driveway which serves one other dwelling. It Appeal Decision 6008677 2 therefore occupies an atypical position, with a large side garden around which the fence has been constructed. Whilst not forming part of a conventional street frontage, the Supplementary Planning Document: House Extensions and Domestic Outbuildings (2021) (SPD) nevertheless reflects the Council's expectation that boundary treatments adjacent to publicly visible areas should generally remain low in height. 8. Areas of open frontage make an important contribution to the spacious and open character of the residential environment. Although the host dwelling does not directly address the street in the same manner as neighbouring properties, it remains readily visible from the public realm. It is particularly noticeable from Beechwood Avenue and the end of Leawood Close. 9. The site was previously enclosed by hedge planting which formed a softer and more natural boundary treatment that contributed positively to the verdant character of the area. I acknowledge that timber fencing is a common form of domestic boundary treatment, however, the appeal fence wraps around the site for a considerable length and despite the hit and miss design, it appears as a solid structure. This, combined with its height, the conspicuous concrete posts, and prominent siting along a highly visible boundary, results in it forming a visually assertive feature within the street scene. 10. The appellant has provided other examples of boundary treatments at No’s 4, 7 and 12 Beechwood Avenue. However, I have limited details of the increase in height of a brick wall constructed at No 4, and the hedge at No 7 fronts a gated entrance to an extensive garden and is not a comparable property to the appeal site. Whilst there is a taller, weathered, timber fence covered in foliage at No 12, it is an isolated example, which does not include prominent concrete posts. These examples therefore differ in their design and scale and do not lead me to a different conclusion. Consequently, the fence appears incongruous and out of keeping with the established pattern of development. 11. Whilst a boundary treatment of up to 1 metre adjacent to the highway may be erected without planning permission, the appeal proposal is materially taller, and it is the visual effect of the additional height and resulting enclosure which forms the basis of my concerns. 12. The appellant suggests that planting could be introduced to soften the appearance of the fence over time. However, no details have been provided to demonstrate that this could be feasibly accommodated along the length of the boundary. As such, I cannot be satisfied that the proposed planting would be effectively delivered, and it would not be reasonable to rely on a planning condition to mitigate the identified harm. 13. I therefore conclude that the development has a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, the development conflicts with policies ENV 6, DM3 and DM21 of the Cheshire West and Chester Council Local Plan (Parts One and Two) (2015), which seek to ensure that development respects local character, responds positively to its surroundings and contributes to a high-quality sense of place through appropriate layout and design. Appeal Decision 6008677 3 Other Matters 14. I attach moderate weight to the increased privacy and security afforded by the fencing. However, these benefits do not outweigh the identified harm to the character and appearance of the area, nor has it been demonstrated that these benefits could not be achieved through means that have a lesser impact on the character and appearance of the area. Conclusion and Recommendation 15. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. Ellie Nutman APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 16. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. M J Francis INSPECTOR