Erection of a boundary fence and gate to a maximum height of 1.88m and a pergola Decision

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15 July 2026 by Ian McHugh DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 6 August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6009944 32 Accommodation Road, Horncastle, LN9 5AS • 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 Mrs Maria Nunn against the decision of East Lindsey District Council. • The application Ref is 03519/25/FUL. • The development proposed is the erection of a boundary fence and gate to a maximum height of 1.88m and a pergola Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to the pergola. The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to the erection of a boundary fence and gate to a maximum height of 1.88m and planning permission is granted for the erection of a boundary fence and gate to a maximum height of 1.88m at 32 Accommodation Road, Horncastle, LN9 5AS, in accordance with the terms of the application Reference 03519/25/FUL, so far as relevant to that part of the development hereby permitted and subject to the following condition: 1) The development hereby permitted is detailed on the following approved plans: 1:1250 scale location plan and 1:500 scale site plan. Procedural Matter 2. The fencing, gate and pergola have been erected. Consequently, I have dealt with the proposal in accordance with the provisions of Section 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in relation to development that has already been carried out. The Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 4. The appeal property is a detached bungalow, which is situated in a prominent corner position within a residential area. The area, in the vicinity of the appeal site, is characterised by single-storey bungalows with front gardens, which are mainly bounded by low walls and, in some cases, hedging and other vegetation. 5. The fencing and pergola have already been erected. The fencing and gate have been constructed along the front garden boundary facing Mark Avenue. The fence has been built on top of the existing wall and comprises horizontal wooden strips Appeal Decision 6009944 2 fixed to timber posts. The wooden strips have small gaps between. The gate, which is the part of the development that is 1.88m high, is also positioned on the Mark Avenue frontage and is of the same appearance and construction as the fence. 6. The Council considers that the fence and gate is out of character and detracts from the streetscene. It cites a conflict with Policy SP10 of the East Lindsey Local Plan (LP) and Policy 2 of the Horncastle Neighbourhood Plan (NP). These policies seek (amongst other things) to ensure that new development reflects the character of the surrounding area. 7. Whilst the fencing and gate appear different to the front boundaries on other properties in the immediate area, I do not find them to be visually offensive or detrimental to the streetscene. The fence itself is relatively low and the gaps between the horizontal strips help to give the appearance of a relatively light weight structure. 8. In addition, I observed at my site visit that the nature and layout of the plot is such that the front garden area is the main garden space for the bungalow, unlike others which have traditional private rear gardens. The fencing provides a degree of privacy, which gives the occupants a greater enjoyment of the property. I consider that this adds weight in favour of this part of the development. 9. With regard to the pergola, I have arrived at a different conclusion. Although it is a relatively modest structure in terms of its height and overall volume, it has been positioned in a highly prominent position on the corner of the garden close to the junction between Accommodation Road and Mark Avenue. The surrounding area is generally devoid of buildings and garden structures within the frontages of properties and the pergola appears incongruous and out of character with the streetscene. Accordingly, I conclude that it conflicts with the relevant policies of the LP and the NP, as referred to above. Furthermore, this conflict is not outweighed by other material considerations. Conditions 10. As the development has already been carried out, the only condition necessary is one that specifies the approved plans that are relevant to the fencing and gate. Conclusion 11. For the reasons given above, it is concluded that the appeal be allowed in relation to the boundary fence and gate to a maximum height of 1.88m. Regarding the pergola, the appeal is dismissed. Ian McHugh INSPECTOR