Erection of boundary treatment and gates

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 23 June 2026 by Lynne Evans BA MA MRTPI MRICS an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 06 August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6010530 66 Ringwood Road, Longham, Dorset BH22 9AW • 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 Mr Marshall Lee against the decision of Dorset Council. • The application Ref is P/HOU/2026/00841. • The development is erection of boundary treatment and gates. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for erection of boundary treatment and gates at 66 Ringwood Road, Longham, Dorset BH22 9AW in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P/HOU/2026/00841, and the plan submitted with it Ref: 25:361/001, subject to the condition set out at the end of this decision letter. Preliminary Matters 2. The application forms confirm that the development had been completed prior to the submission of the application. The application is therefore seeking permission for works already carried out under Section 73A of The Town and Country Planning Act 1990, namely the erection of boundary treatment and gates. 3. The site falls within the Green Belt but the Council has confirmed that it also lies within an established Village Infilling Policy Area of Longham as identified by Policy GBV1 of the East Dorset Local Plan (2002) (Local Plan) and where Policies GB7 and GBV2 are relevant. Policy GB7 sets out that infill development will be allowed within the Village Infill Envelopes and should be of a scale and character that respects the existing village form. Policy GBV2 requires that within the Village Policy Envelopes, new development must maintain or improve the character and form of the settlement. Main Issue 4. The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the local area. Reasons 5. The appeal site relates to a semi-detached house on the east side of the A348 which runs through the settlement of Longham. A 2m close boarded wooden fence Appeal Decision 6010530 2 with concrete posts has been erected along the front boundary with double gates attached either side to a brick pillar, at the northern end of the site. 6. The settlement of Longham is very varied in character and appearance with a number of older buildings interspersed with more modern developments, including both residential and commercial and retail and interspersed with open areas of land on both sides of the A348. Some of the buildings are sited relatively close to the highway boundary with others set much further back. Reflecting this variety of building forms and uses as well as siting, there is also considerable variety to the boundary treatments, some being open whilst others are more enclosed with a range of walls, hedging and fences, of different heights. Notwithstanding this overall variety, there are a number of taller boundary treatments close to the appeal site, on both sides of the road, including walls and fences. It is this wide diversity in the development pattern together with building styles and frontage treatments which contributes to the character and appearance of the settlement of Longham. 7. The fence as erected uses materials which are found elsewhere in the settlement in frontage treatments, including in relatively close proximity to the appeal site. Its height is not out of proportion with some of the other boundary treatments found close by. Given the wide diversity of boundary treatments which all contribute to the character and attractiveness of the settlement, I consider that the fence as erected, including its height, length and materials, is readily assimilated into the street scene and does not appear overly dominant or out of character. 8. I am therefore satisfied that the fence as erected does maintain the character and the appearance of the local area and of the settlement of Longham. There is no conflict with Policy HE2 of the Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework), with particular reference to Section 12, both of which seek a high quality of design which respects the local context. Other Considerations 9. There is no reason for refusal in respect of highway matters. However, there is conflicting information before me regarding the siting of the gates. The Appellant advises that the siting of the gates was undertaken with the agreement of the Highway Authority, yet at the application stage, which on the basis of the information provided by the Appellant was submitted after the fence and gates had been erected, the Highway Authority raised no objection subject to the gates being set back 5 m from the edge of the carriageway and open inwards. The gates did not appear to meet these requirements, particularly in terms of their set back, at the time of my site visit. 10. Given the busy nature of the main road, I agree with the Highway Authority that vehicles need to be parked clear of the carriageway whilst the gates open or close to prevent interruptions to the free flow of traffic. The proposed condition by the Highway Authority and the Council would not be effective as the development has been undertaken but it would be possible to impose a condition to require revised plans in respect of the siting of the vehicular gates to be submitted and once approved the works undertaken within a specified period of time, and thereafter maintained and retained. Appeal Decision 6010530 3 Conditions 11. I have already addressed the requirement for a condition about the position of the vehicular gates above. 12. However, as I have assessed that the timing for these works to be undertaken would require to be different from the timing set out in the condition proposed by the Council, and to ensure that the principles of natural justice and fairness are followed, I have asked for comments on the proposed condition prior to determination. The Appellant has confirmed that he has no objection to the proposed condition. 13. As the development has already been undertaken, there is no requirement for a commencement condition. Conclusion 14. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. L J Evans INSPECTOR Condition 1. Notwithstanding the submitted plan Ref: 25:361/001, unless within 2 months of the date of this decision a scheme for the siting of the vehicular gates to show that they are sited a minimum of 5m from the edge of the carriageway and open inwards into the appeal site is submitted in writing to the local planning authority for written approval, and unless the approved scheme is implemented within 3 months of the local planning authority’s written approval, the existing vehicular gates shall be removed until such time as a scheme is approved and implemented. If no scheme in accordance with this condition is approved within 9 months of the date of this decision, the existing gates shall be removed until such time as a scheme approved by the local planning authority is implemented. Upon implementation of the approved scheme for the gates specified in this condition, that scheme shall thereafter be maintained and retained. In the event of a legal challenge to this decision, or to a decision made pursuant to the procedure set out in this condition, the operation of the time limits specified in this condition will be suspended until that legal challenge has been finally determined.