Retention of front boundary timber fence

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 23 July 2026 By Michael Evans BA MA MPhil DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 29 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6009924 Roughlea, Butlers Dene Road, Woldingham CR3 7HH • 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 Linda Petoczova against the decision of Tandridge District Council. • The application Ref is TA/2025/1378. • The development proposed is described on the application form as “Retention of front boundary timber fence”. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue in this appeal is the effect on the streetscene and the character and appearance of the locality. Reasons 3. The appeal concerns a detached dwelling that fronts onto Butlers Dene Road from which it is set back in a relatively large plot. Dwellings in the vicinity tend to be enclosed from the road by hedges which are often fairly substantial. As a result, there is a pleasant verdant character. There are examples of other types of boundary treatment in the locality such as fences and walls. 4. However, these are, on the whole, fairly isolated examples and boundary treatments predominantly comprise soft landscaping. The two metre high wooden fencing that with the exception of the access extends across the full width of the plot at Roughlea is therefore relatively unusual. In this context and given its height and length it forms an overly stark, harsh and discordant feature unduly at odds with the prevailing means of enclosure. It is also particularly prominent and dominates adjacent views towards the appeal site from the road. 5. The planting of shrubs to the front in the space between the fence and the hard surface of the road has not had any significant effect on its visibility. Even over a fairly long period of time, it seems unlikely to me that this vegetation would provide sufficient screening to prevent the incongruous presence of the fence from being readily apparent. The plants could die or be removed by future occupiers anyway. The hedges at the immediately adjacent dwellings are noticeably higher than the new fence. However, these are consistent with the character of the road and therefore provide no support for the appeal. Appeal Decision 6009924 2 6. The Appellant refers to fences that have been erected elsewhere in the locality, but half of these are in other roads. Moreover, Butlers Dene Road and these other roads are fairly long so that these examples extend along a fairly small proportion of their overall length. As a result, these are fairly unusual examples that illustrate the detrimental effect such development can have. They should not therefore be used as a precedent to justify development that has further eroded the quality of the environment. 7. For the above reasons it is concluded that the streetscene and the character and appearance of the locality have been harmed. Of those policies referred to in the Council’s decision notice the most relevant are Policy CSP 18 of the Tandridge District Core Strategy 2008, Policy DP7 and DP9 of the Tandridge Local Plan Part 2: Detailed Policies 2014 and Policy L1 of the Woldingham Neighbourhood Plan 2016. 8. Together and among other things, these seek high quality design that integrates with its surroundings, allows the landscape to remain as the dominant feature, respects the character, setting and local context and means of enclosure should not cause adverse effects due to their scale or materials. The failure to achieve these aims means that there is conflict with these policies. 9. There has been no harm in relation to matters such as overlooking, visual intrusion, tree loss or access alterations. Nevertheless, these are neutral matters that weigh neither for nor against the appeal. 10. I acknowledge the representations in support of the appeal from local residents. Nevertheless, given the distance to the dwelling at Roughlea, I am not persuaded that the fence is important in protecting the privacy of occupiers on the opposite side of the road. There is no technical evidence to show any significant improvement in highway safety arising from the removal of the hedge and erection of the fence at Roughlea. 11. This is a case where harm has been caused and there is conflict with the development plan. Moreover, there are no other considerations that would justify making a decision other than in accordance with the development plan and the appeal is therefore dismissed. In reaching this decision I have considered the photographs provided by the Appellant. M Evans INSPECTOR