Change of boundary treatment from post and rail fence on west and south side to 1.8m close board fence to match that of the existing fence on the north and east

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 25 August 2026 by S Simms BSc (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 25 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6011115 Rose Villa, Little Heath, Gamlingay, Sandy SG19 3LL • 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 Marc Gough against the decision of South Cambridgeshire District Council. • The application reference is 26/00500/HFUL. • The development proposed is a change of boundary treatment from post and rail fence on west and south side to 1.8m close board fence to match that of the existing fence on the north and east. Entrance gate changed from post and rail to 1.8m to match fence. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. A new version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published on 17 August 2026. I invited the main parties to comment on any implications of these for their cases but neither chose to do so. I have taken the new Framework into account in reaching my decision. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 4. The site is at the edge of an area of dispersed development near a large village and contains a recently built two-storey detached house set at right angles to a private gravel road. The house fronts on to a driveway intended to serve five further dwellings, across which is open countryside. A tall close-boarded fence encloses the rear and side of the front garden furthest from the road, mature conifers line the side facing the road, and a low post-and-rail fence encloses the rest of the large front garden with conifer saplings planted between it and the road. 5. The road serves several other similar properties nearby, some of which appear also recently built and have tall close-boarded timber fences like that proposed. One of significant length encloses one side of the road and occludes views of houses and countryside beyond. Older properties are bounded by low post-and- rail fences or thick native hedgerows and so remain open and verdant. 6. The proposal would enclose both the front garden and a further length of the road. I accept that the area and its boundary treatments are varied in character, but further tall fences will further enclose common spaces and erode the remaining Appeal Decision 6011115 2 openness, particularly at the edge of the open countryside. I also accept that, in time, the fence will weather and the conifers may grow to form a hedgerow, but the harm would remain in the interim and may be manifest again on felling. 7. Therefore, I conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to Policy HQ/1 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018, which requires high-quality design that preserves or enhances the character of the local area and responds to its context in the wider landscape. Policy H/13 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 relates to extensions to dwellings in the countryside and is not therefore relevant to the proposal. Other Matters 8. The Parish Council supports the proposal on the basis that it is required for security and privacy. However, I am not convinced that it is the only means of securing these objectives, which are outweighed by the harm I have found. 9. Whilst the road may be private, it nonetheless comprises an area common to the neighbouring occupiers and landowners, who will be affected by the proposal, which may also be visible in longer views from the village and countryside. 10. I note the intention to plant wildflowers along the site frontage, which would be a benefit to biodiversity. However, this could be achieved without the proposal and would not outweigh the harm that I have identified. 11. Policy S5 of the Framework does not list the proposal in any of the categories that should be approved outside settlements. Consequently, it should only be approved in exceptional circumstances, where the benefits would substantially outweigh the adverse effects, including to the character of the countryside. 12. Overall, the benefits would not substantially outweigh the harm I have identified to character and appearance, including that of the countryside. Conclusion 13. The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. The appeal should therefore be dismissed. S Simms INSPECTOR