Erection of 1.9m high fence (retrospective)

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 30 June 2026 by A Caines BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 07 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6009954 558 Wollaton Road, Nottingham NG8 2AA • 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 Alison Murday against the decision of Nottingham City Council. • The application Ref is 26/00007/PFUL3. • The development proposed is erection of 1.9m high fence (retrospective). Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. The original description of development included extraneous detail and justification not constituting development, so I have adopted the more concise wording from the Council’s decision notice. 3. The application was submitted retrospectively, and I have considered the appeal on that basis. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, including the effect on the significance of the Wollaton Park Conservation Area through development within its setting. Reasons 5. The appeal site is part of an established residential environment on the north side of Wollaton Road. The properties are typically set back from the road behind low fences or walls, sometimes supplemented by hedges and other garden planting. As a result, front boundary treatments generally maintain a degree of openness to the street or otherwise provide a softer and more verdant form of enclosure through natural vegetation. 6. The Wollaton Park Conservation Area (WPCA) lies immediately to the south and encompasses the historic parkland surrounding Wollaton Hall. The parkland boundary is formed by a tall brick wall, set back from the road behind mature trees and wide grass verges. From the information before me and my own observations, the significance of the WPCA derives in part from its historic parkland character, mature planting, historic boundaries and spacious landscape setting. Although the appeal site lies just outside the conservation area boundary, it forms part of the setting in which the heritage asset is experienced. Appeal Decision 6009954 2 7. The development includes a fence and driveway gate along the front boundary adjacent to the highway. According to the submitted details, the fence is approximately 1.94 metres high and the gate is 1.66 metres high. Both are formed of solid anthracite grey composite panels with black posts and edging. The evidence indicates that the previous boundary treatment comprised a low timber fence with a hedge behind, in keeping with the established character of the street scene. 8. By reason of its height, solid form and materials, the appeal development creates a visually prominent and assertive frontage feature. In contrast to other softer forms of enclosure on this side of the road, it introduces a noticeably harder and more defensive appearance to the site. Whilst domestic in scale, it is readily visible within the street scene and appears incongruous in its context. 9. Furthermore, the replacement of a softer landscaped frontage with a substantial solid boundary treatment results in a limited erosion of the verdant qualities that contribute positively to the setting of the WPCA. Consequently, the development detracts from the character and appearance of the street scene and causes a low level of harm to the experience of the WPCA through development in its setting. 10. Although the walls associated with Wollaton Hall are of a similar height, they form part of the historic estate and make a positive contribution to its significance and special character. They do not provide a direct comparison with a modern domestic enclosure erected along a residential frontage on the opposite side of the road. Furthermore, the existence of other examples does not in itself establish that the appeal development makes a positive contribution to the street scene and local character. 11. The harm to the significance of the WPCA is limited in extent and therefore amounts to less than substantial harm in the terms of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). However, even less than substantial harm to a designated heritage asset is a matter of considerable importance and weight. That harm must be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. 12. I have had regard to the claims that the previous hedge was poorly maintained, encroached onto the footway and impaired visibility for pedestrians and drivers. I have also noted the claim that the appeal fence provides improved privacy, security and protection from activity associated with visitors to Wollaton Deer Park. 13. However, there is little substantive evidence before me demonstrating that the appeal development provides significant noise attenuation or other material living condition benefits. Whilst it may provide some additional screening and a greater perception of security, these are private rather than public benefits. 14. In addition, even if the previous hedge had caused some obstruction to the footway, its removal or management would not necessarily require replacement with a boundary treatment of the scale and design proposed. Any benefits arising from improved visibility, privacy or security could reasonably be achieved through alternative boundary treatments or landscaping solutions that would be less harmful to the character and appearance of the area and to the setting of the WPCA. 15. Consequently, I afford only limited weight to the matters advanced by the appellant. Those considerations do not outweigh the heritage harm identified. Nor Appeal Decision 6009954 3 do those considerations outweigh the identified harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. 16. Having paid special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the WPCA, as required by Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, I conclude that the development fails to preserve the character or appearance of the WPCA through the effect on its setting. The development also harms the character and appearance of the surrounding area. 17. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policies 10 and 11 of the Greater Nottingham Aligned Core Strategies Part 1 Local Plan (2014), and Policies DE1, DE2 and HE1 of the Nottingham City Land and Planning Policies Development Plan Document: Local Plan Part 2 (2020). Together, these require high-quality design that conserves and where appropriate enhances the historic environment and contributes positively to local character. Conclusion 18. For the reasons given, the development is harmful to the character and appearance of the area, and causes less than substantial harm to the significance of the WPCA through development within its setting. It therefore conflicts with the relevant development plan policies and the Framework. Material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed. A Caines INSPECTOR