30m of timber boundary raised fencing to the north and south elevation
📊
See the success rate & inspector analytics
Free to view — just create an account, no payment needed.
Sign Up FreeTechnical Issues Heatmap
Character & Appearance
Policy Weight
Inspector’s Reasoning
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 31 July 2026
by J Evans BA(Hons) AssocRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date:13 August 2026
Appeal Ref: 6011265
98 Woolbrook Road, Sidmouth, Devon EX10 9XD
• 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 Julian Hofmann against the decision of East Devon District Council.
• The application Ref is 26/0190/FUL.
• The development proposed is described as 30m of timber boundary raised fencing to the north and
south elevation.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Application for costs
2. An application for costs has been made by the appellant against East Devon
District Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.
Preliminary Matters
3. The application form confirms that the appeal proposal has been completed and
this was evident to me during my site visit. Section 73A of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990, as amended (the Act) makes allowance for the submission of a
planning application for development which has been carried out before the date of
the application. I have determined the appeal on that basis.
4. I have used the description of the appeal proposal from the decision notice and the
appeal form as I consider this better reflects the proposed development before me.
However, I have removed the wording ‘retrospective planning permission’ from the
description as this does not constitute a form of development as per Section 55 of
the Act.
Main Issue
5. The main issue in this case is the effects of the appeal proposal on the character
and appearance of the area.
Reasons
6. The appeal property is a detached C20 dwellinghouse positioned part way along
Woolbrook Road which leads down from the A3052 into Sidmouth.
7. Through my site visit, I approached the site from the north-west, and I was
immediately taken by the incongruous nature of the timber fencing in the context of
Appeal Decision 6011265
2
the surrounding area whereby the front gardens are predominantly enclosed by
natural boundaries to the highway or are otherwise open, with views over what are
mostly landscaped gardens.
8. The man-made timber fencing, running for a length of approximately 30 metres at
an elevated height above an existing stone wall positioned adjacent to the
pedestrian pavement along the road, contrasts starkly with the softer, natural and
pleasant character of the front boundaries of the properties in the surrounding area.
9. Whilst I appreciate the fencing has weathered to some degree from when it was
first installed, it nonetheless appears unsympathetic to its surroundings and
represents a dominate and incongruous feature when passing. Ultimately it is a
combination of the finish, the overall height and the proximity to the highway that
results in a harmful effect upon the character and appearance of the area.
10. I am aware that the appellant has planted native hedging whips along the
Woolbrook Road frontage to the property. However, this element of the proposal
was not considered by the Council, and I am conscious that the planning appeals:
procedural guide is clear that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a
scheme. Moreover, it states that it is important that what is considered by the
Inspector at appeal is essentially the same scheme that was considered by the
Council, and by interested parties at the application stage.
11. But even so, it is also not clear to me how effective the hedging would be in terms
of screening the fencing bearing in mind its height and the limited space between
the enclosure and the adjacent pavement. On one of the images provided through
the original application paperwork, a gap of around 20 to 30 cm is shown between
the fencing and the outer wall of the retaining wall below. This appeared to me as
being broadly consistent with the gap along the frontage to the appeal site.
12. Without further information it seems to me that the ability for an effective hedging
enclosure for an approximate 1.8m height and to run for an approximate 30m
length within such constraints maybe difficult to achieve. Therefore, without a
degree of certainty that the hedging would be effective as a natural screen to the
fencing, alongside noting that this element of the proposal was not considered at
the application stage, I cannot give the hedging any significant weight in my
conclusions.
13. In reaching my decision, I have also noted that there are some other fenced
enclosures fronting to the road in various locations in the wider area, some of which
have been highlighted to me by the appellant. Whilst these examples did not
appear to be of the same height and length of the appeal proposal, they
nonetheless appeared out of place in my view and were not positive features that
should be repeated. They were also not evident in the immediate environs to the
appeal site and I also do not know the individual planning circumstances behind
any of these cases. These other examples have not therefore materially altered my
conclusions upon the appeal proposal.
14. Amongst a number of matters, the appellant has referred to a safeguarding function
for the enclosure to mitigate risks of falls for occupants and visitors to their
property, as part of their justification for the proposal, alongside making reference
to requirements under other legislation to the planning acts. Through my
considerations I have had regard to the points made by the appellant and the
justifications for providing a safe and secure outdoor living space in association
Appeal Decision 6011265
3
with the use of the appeal property. However, it does seem to me that the proposal
is not the only way such objectives could be achieved. But in any case, such
justifications do not represent sufficient reasons to overcome the concerns I have
identified to the character and appearance of the area.
15. To conclude, for all of the above reasons the proposal conflicts with the
requirements of Strategy 48 (Local Distinctiveness in the Built Environment) and
Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the adopted East Devon Local Plan
2013-2031; Policy 7 (Local Distinctiveness) of the Sid Valley Neighbourhood Plan;
and Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which amongst other
matters, seek development that respects the key characteristics and special
qualities of the area; and complements and enhances the local distinctiveness of
the character of its immediate locality.
Conclusions
16. For the reasons set out above, the appeal proposal would have a detrimental effect
upon the character and appearance of the area.
17. As a result of these negative effects, the proposal is in my view unacceptable, and
contrary to the development plan, when read as a whole. There are no material
considerations that would justify a decision contrary to the provisions of the
development plan, in this case.
18. For all of the above reasons, having regard to all matters raised, I conclude that the
appeal should be dismissed.
J Evans
INSPECTOR
£
Costs decision section
Costs Decision
Site visit made on 31 July 2026
by J Evans BA(Hons) AssocRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date:13 August 2026
Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: 6011265
98 Woolbrook Road, Sidmouth, Devon EX10 9XD
• The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78, 322 and
Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5).
• The application is made by Mr Julian Hofmann for a partial award of costs against East Devon
District Council.
• The appeal was against a refusal of planning permission for 30m of timber boundary raised fencing
to the north and south elevation.
Decision
1. The application for a partial award of costs is refused.
Reasons
2. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that costs may be awarded against
a party who has behaved unreasonably and thereby caused the party applying for
costs to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process. The general
principle embodied within the PPG is that the parties involved should normally meet
their own expenses.
3. The applicant is seeking a partial award of costs against the Council. The PPG
explains that awards against a local planning authority may be either procedural,
relating to the appeal process or substantive, relating to the planning merits of the
appeal.
4. The applicant considers, amongst other matters, that the Council have behaved
unreasonably on the basis that they consider the Council have not appropriately
engaged in a proactive manner1 seeking to resolve their concerns before issuing a
decision, and that the reasons for refusal do not acknowledge a number of the
submissions made by the applicant. As a result, the applicant considers they have
incurred costs in pursuing the appeal in relation to professional expenses following
engagement undertaken with a planning consultant following the issuing of the
decision.
5. On the matter of the engagement undertaken by the Council, the planning case
officer contacted the applicant on the morning of 18th March 2026 via e-mail prior to
issuing the decision. The case officer setting out their concerns with the proposal
and at the end of their correspondence suggesting the consideration for an
1The applicant has made specific reference to Section 35 of the Town and Country Planning (Development
Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, as amended
Costs Decision 6011265
2
alternative boundary treatment which they advised should be ‘…something lower or
more in keeping with the established pattern of front boundaries.’’
6. The appellant replied on the same day by e-mail and amongst other matters,
sought further clarification on what would be considered acceptable. The case
officer replied again by e-mail later on the 18th suggesting a lowering of the height
of the fencing to roughly 1.8m overall, the introduction of planting and soft
vegetation behind the boundary, and the possibility to gentle taper the fencing
height. The case officer concluded in their correspondence that ‘if you wish to
pursue this direction, please provide revised drawings as soon as possible so that
we can undertake the necessary reconsultation.’
7. On the 23rd March 2026 the applicant provided a detailed response to the case
officer’s e-mail above, setting out a number of reasons why they considered the
revisions to the proposal suggested by the Council were not appropriate in this
case and why they considered the proposal as submitted was acceptable. The
applicant concluded that they ‘… remain keen to resolve this matter constructively
through discussion, However I do not consider that the currently suggested height
adequately addresses the safeguarding considerations at play.’
8. As I understand it, no further engagement between the parties took place
thereafter, and the Council issued their decision on 24th March 2026. The applicant
considers that the Council should have engaged further following the e-mail on the
23rd March 2026 before issuing a decision.
9. From everything that I have read and reviewed, it seems to me that the Council’s
position was clear, they found that the proposal as submitted unacceptable, and
they presented possible revisions as set out in their correspondence to the
applicant that they considered could resolve the concerns they had expressed. The
submissions made by the applicant on the 23 March 2026 were not revisions to the
application, they were a technical response to the suggestions from the case
officer. The Council were under no obligation to delay their decision on technical
commentary and there is no legislative provision requiring the Council to accept
amendments to applications.
10. Whilst further correspondence from the Council to the applicant’s email on 23
March 2026 setting out that they were now about to issue a formal decision may
have assisted, it was nonetheless clear that the Council, as they had explained,
found the proposal as submitted unacceptable and without revision, it was clear
that they would refuse the application.
11. I therefore find that the Council, as the local planning authority, did seek to resolve
their concerns through the engagement they undertook and work proactively with
the applicant, however, a mutually agreeable solution was not achieved, and the
Council refused the application as they are entitled to do. The applicant was not left
in a position of directly incurring wasted expense at appeal because of the decision
notice being issued.
12. Therefore, having considered the evidence before me I am not persuaded that an
appeal could have been avoided, and I also find no conflict with the legislative duty
of Section 35 of The Town and Country Planning (Development Management
Procedure) (England) Order 2015, as amended. As a result, unreasonable
behaviour has not been demonstrated on this point.
Costs Decision 6011265
3
13. Turning to the further points raised, the applicant sets out that the Council’s reason
for refusal makes no reference to the technical submissions that were made.
However, the reason for refusal was based on character and appearance matters,
not technical safety points. In their decision notice, the Council must state clearly
and precisely their full reasons for the refusal, specifying all policies and proposals
in the development plan which are relevant to the decision. There is no requirement
to provide a specific rebuttal to the arguments made by the applicant.
14. Ultimately, I find that the reason for refusal on the decision notice is complete,
precise, specific and relevant to the proposal submitted. It clearly states the areas
of concern, alongside the policies of the development plan and the material
considerations that, in the Council’s view, the proposal would conflict with.
Unreasonable behaviour on this point has not been demonstrated.
15. Finally, turning to the engagement of a planning consultant, this is not unusual and
ultimately was the applicant’s decision and is discretionary. As I have found that the
decision notice was complete, precise, specific and relevant to the proposal
submitted I do not agree with the applicant’s assertion that the decision notice
created genuine uncertainty about the available options. I do not accept that the
Council behaved unreasonably or that the applicant was put to unnecessary
expense.
16. I therefore conclude, having regard to all matters raised, that the Council did not act
unreasonably in coming to their decision. There is no evidence to suggest that they
have unreasonably prevented or delayed the proposal in this regard.
J Evans
INSPECTOR
Expert Representation
Don't leave your appeal to chance.
Inspectors are inconsistent. We build a technical defense using precedents from our 182,000+ case archive.
No win, no fee Householder representation — you only pay if you win.