Erection of boundary fence

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 August 2026 by P Brennan BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 25 August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6008797 1 Snowdrop Meadow, Red Lake, Telford TF1 5WR • 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 Sarah Tennant against the decision of Telford and Wrekin Council. • The application Ref is TWC/2025/0875. • The development proposed is the erection of boundary fence. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. I have amended the description of development in the heading above from that used on the application form to remove the words ‘part retrospective’ as this is not a description of development. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area. Reasons 4. The property of 1 Snowdrop Meadow (No1) is a two-storey, semi-detached dwelling located near to the entrance to the cul-de-sac. The appeal site is in an established residential area, on a modern, open-plan housing estate, in a road comprising of two-storey semi-detached and terraces of 3, 4 and 5 dwellings. Snowdrop Meadow gently slopes uphill from its junction with Woodside Road leading to several small retaining walls, generally located between the private driveways of various pairs of semi-detached dwellings. 5. A small difference in levels exists between the property at No1 and its neighbour at No 3 Snowdrop Meadow (No3). The level difference between the dwellings was previously addressed by a small 1m high, brick retaining wall. This wall was located between the two front doors of the semi-detached pair of dwellings. The wall sat at that height for around 1.8m running towards the road, before dropping to a smaller wall of around three brick courses in height to the back of the footway. The erection of the boundary fence as a replacement for the wall has already commenced at the property but has not been fully completed. 6. Most of the neighbouring properties have not erected walls or fences to the front of the property to either enclose the front garden space or to separate the semi- detached properties from each other. Where a form of enclosure has occurred, this Appeal Decision 6008797 2 has generally been undertaken using soft landscaping. The uniform nature of the dwellings leads to a structured character and appearance of the area. The dwelling makes a positive contribution to this character and appearance. 7. The fence as erected is 2m in height and 1.83m in length with concrete posts and kickboards. Further fencing is proposed that would run between the plots. separating the front gardens, to the back of the footway. The second panel of fencing would start at 2m in height and would drop down in height to 1.3m. The remaining two panels would have a height of 1.3m. 8. Whilst part of the panel already erected is partially screened underneath the porch roof canopy, it is still very visible when entering Snowdrop Meadow from Woodside Road. Nonetheless, the erected panel would not be out of character or incongruous. However, further fencing would be highly visible and out of character with the open-plan character of the appeal site, Snowdrop Meadow, and the wider estate. 9. Whilst I note that the fence is sought for privacy due to the difference in land levels, the difference is not so severe as to create a privacy issue. The fence also separates the front doors and as such, is not required to protect or prevent overlooking into the front ground floor habitable room. As such, the proposed fence, including its noticeable height, would be overly dominant in its context and a boundary treatment of this nature to the front of the property in Snowdrop Meadow would be incongruous within its open plan setting. 10. Consequently, the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the application site and would fail to enhance the quality of the local built environment. Accordingly, the proposal fails to accord with Policies BE1, BE2, SP1 and SP4 of the Telford and Wrekin Local Plan 2011-2031. These policies, amongst other matters, seek to support development that respects and responds positively to its context; demonstrates an integrated design approach; respects the landscape setting and topography; preserves and reinforces layouts, traditional frontages and boundary treatments; remains in keeping with the existing building and respects the character of the area. Other Matters 11. The appellant has drawn my attention to the boundary fencing at the neighbouring property at 143 Woodside Road. Whilst the fencing that was granted planning permission and erected on site is around 2m in height, the fencing encloses the side and rear boundary and an area of parking. Consequently, the fencing erected at 143 Woodside Road has a different context to that proposed at the appeal property. Therefore, there is no direct comparison to be made between these that weighs in the appeal’s favour. 12. Several other examples of fencing both between properties and forming front and side boundary treatments to properties within walking distance of the appeal site have been provided by the appellant. However, details of these are not before me and I am therefore unable to ascertain if planning permission has been granted for these and/or if they were provided as part of the original construction of the dwelling. Nonetheless, most of the examples provided have a different context and indicate fencing of a lesser height and dominance than that proposed at No1. Appeal Decision 6008797 3 13. Whilst I acknowledge that the proposed development would not affect the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, this neither weighs for nor against the proposed development. Conclusion 14. The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed. P Brennan INSPECTOR