Remove hedge and existing fence and replace with a new fence around the boundary. We plan to do this for security and to stop people walking onto our property as well as improve the appearance of the local area. Within the fence will be a gate for the drive and a pedestrian gate. The proposed height of the fence posts is 190 cm

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 25 August 2026 by R Gilbert BA (Hons) MSc MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 17th September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6011422 319 Beechdale Road, Nottingham City, Nottingham NG8 3FF • 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 Edward Rippon against the decision of Nottingham City Council. • The application reference is 25/01910/PFUL3. • The development proposed is described as “Remove hedge and existing fence and replace with a new fence around the boundary. We plan to do this for security and to stop people walking onto our property as well as improve the appearance of the local area. Within the fence will be a gate for the drive and a pedestrian gate. The proposed height of the fence posts is 190 cm”. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. During the course of the appeal a new National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published on the 17 August 2026. Whilst the format has altered, any considerations that are material to this decision have not fundamentally changed. I am satisfied that this has not prejudiced any party and I have had regard to the latest version in reaching my decision. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the appeal property and surrounding area. Reasons 4. The appeal property is a semi-detached dwelling situated on a corner plot. Its front boundary spans the corner and includes a hedge which partly screens the dwelling from view. The remainder of the boundary is open, providing access to the driveway from across a footway on Beechdale Road. Low-level front boundary treatments, comprising dwarf walls and timber fencing, are a defining feature of this part of the street scene. They distinguish private property from the public highway whilst retaining a level of openness that contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area. 5. The proposed development would include removal of the hedge and adjacent fencing to enable installation of a fence, pedestrian door and sliding gate. Given the prevailing height of boundary treatments in the area, the height and length of the proposed fence would appear tall and oppressive. It would envelop the appeal property, screening much of it from view. This would not only inhibit the visual openness of the appeal property within the street scene but would also impart an impression of besiegement detrimental to the character and appearance of the Appeal Decision 6011422 2 area. This harm would be compounded by the harsh monochromatic finish of the fence panels which, given their vertical emphasis and prominent position, would appear markedly forbidding. 6. I acknowledge that the footway in front of the appeal property is wide, and it may provide some visual relief to enable a lower fence height. However, a planning condition to secure a lower fence height would be at odds with the height expressed on the submitted plans. Such a condition would therefore incur ambiguity as to what had been permitted and would not be capable of being complied with and enforced. A fence may have spanned the front boundary of the appeal property historically. However, there is no substantive evidence before me to confirm the height or extent of this fence, and its prior existence does not persuade me that a less harmful scheme could not otherwise be achieved in the same location. 7. In having due regard to the duty under Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (as amended), the proposed fence may be able to secure the site and prevent the crime and public health issues experienced by the appellant. However, other boundary treatments in the street scene achieve enclosure and defensible space in a more sympathetic manner. Consequently, I do not consider the proposed development to be a proportionate design response that would justify the harm to the character and appearance of the area. 8. I note that the appellant has engaged with neighbouring residents and that those consulted provided unanimous support for the proposal. Although local engagement is important and is to be encouraged, in this specific instance the support of residents does not overcome the harm I have identified, which I have assessed on its own merits, and on the basis of the evidence before me. 9. The appellant has referred me to the fence present at the front of the neighbouring property at 321 Beechdale Road, as well as the existing fence post on their own property. Both examples are composed of timber and have a height approaching little over half that of the proposed development. Consequently, they are not comparable to the proposal before me and attract limited weight in favour of the appeal as a result. 10. For the reasons set out above, the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the appeal property and surrounding area. Conflict therefore arises with Policy 10 of the Aligned Core Strategies Part 1 Local Plan (2014) as well as Policies DE1 and DE2 of the Nottingham City Land and Planning Policies Development Plan Document Local Plan Part 2 (2020). These policies seek to create a clear distinction between public and private space with appropriate forms of boundary treatment that would respect and enhance the streetscape in order to reinforce valued local characteristics. Conclusion 11. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed. R Gilbert INSPECTOR