Erection of 1.8m perimeter fence (retrospective)

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 16 September 2026 by Eleni Marshall BSc (hons) MSc FRICS FAAV MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 22 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6012575 72 Wolds Rise, Matlock, Derbyshire, DE4 3HJ • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Amelia Goodall against Derbyshire Dales District Council. • The application Ref is 25/01190/FUL. • The development proposed is erection of 1.8m perimeter fence (retrospective). Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. Since the determination of this application the Government issued the new revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework 2026. On this occasion I do not consider there any need to revert to the main parties regarding this change. The new policies for decision making do not substantially alter matters relating to the main issues which are the subject of this appeal. 3. I have utilised the Council’s description of the proposal as it describes the proposal more concisely than that on the original application form. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the impact of the proposal upon the surrounding area with regard to height, scale, form and design. Reasons 5. The appeal site is a two storey, detached, dwelling which stands on a corner plot at the junction of Wolds Rise and Pinewood Road. The proposal seeks retrospective planning permission for the erection of a wooden fence, which has a height in the region of 1.8 metres, situated on both the elevation fronting Wolds Rise as well as the side elevation fronting Pinewood Road, respectively. The adopted Derbyshire Dales Local Plan 2017 (LP) Policy S3 sets out the criteria for development within defined settlement boundaries and based upon this, the principle of a fence could be acceptable, but this is subject to consideration as to the impact upon the appeal site and the surrounding area in terms of character and appearance. 6. The immediate locality is defined by frontages and boundaries, which contribute to a general sense openness around properties within the street scene as result of a variety of factors including, for example, set back from the pavement, lower height and shorter length which allows general views into and through properties within the locality. Whilst there are evidently examples of separation between public and Appeal Decision 6012575 2 private space, many of the taller examples are, comparably, provided by hedging. This, softer, boundary treatment contributes to a more verdant character and appearance versus solid fencing at in the region of 1.8 metres and for a notable length (in the region of 14 metres) along one elevation of the property in the street scene. 7. I acknowledge some higher boundary features, noted by the appellant, but these are generally created by hedging as opposed to fencing of the nature at the appeal site. The appellant has submitted images, with their statement of case, however, each case should be considered on its own merits, and I do not find that the examples provided are comparable to the overall length, height and proximity to the back of the pavement as the proposal that is before me. The proposal looks uncharacteristically solid, and visually aggressive, within the immediate locality. 8. The proposal would retain some open frontage to the front elevation (as a result of the fencing being positioned level with the front elevation and set back from the road), however, the height, scale and design of the fencing as constructed along Pinewood Road is not in keeping with the appeal site or its wider location. The utilisation of shiplap fencing, at in the region of 1.8m, is not in keeping with the surrounding area. Whilst I acknowledge some utilisation of timber fencing similar (in terms of materials) to the appeal proposal I do not find these comparable to the appeal proposal in terms of justifying the appeal proposal which is before me. 9. The appellant has also included photographs of the property prior to installation of the fencing. It is acknowledged that existing fencing was present at the appeal site, however, its movement to up to the edge of the pavement, on the boundary, and the loss of the soft landscaping, which was to the front of the original fencing, does not result in a positive contribution to the appeal site or the surrounding area. I do not find that planting stated to have become overgrown, and visually untidy, over time is sufficient justification. Vegetation can reasonably be maintained to improve the appearance of the site if desired. There is limited evidence before me to support that the proposal is/was required as a result of antisocial behaviour or that it is more at risk than typical residential plots within the immediate locality. 10. The proposal is acknowledged to not result in any issues with regard to neighbouring residential amenity and whilst a lack of objection from neighbouring properties is acknowledged, a lack of objection is a neutral consideration. I acknowledge comments with regard to increased usability of outdoor space for occupants of the appeal site; however, I have no evidence before me to suggest that the existing garden space, which appears characteristic of typical garden plot size within the locality, is not suitable for occupants of the host dwelling. Based upon the evidence before me, I do not find that there are clear and material planning benefits that would justify the proposal in the context of the issues which I have identified above. Overall, I do not find that the boundary treatment would improve the visual definition of the corner plot nor that it would result in clear visual benefit to the site if it were to be retained. 11. The appellant’s offer of a more muted colour finish, which could potentially be secured by condition, has been taken into account, however, character and appearance, are separate matters and I do not find on this occasion that an alternative colour finish to the timber fencing would overcome the unsuitability of the proposal in terms of height, scale and form in the context of the immediate locality. Regardless of colour the proposal would remain uncharacteristic. Due to Appeal Decision 6012575 3 the proposal’s siting, immediately up to the rear of the pavement, there would also be very limited opportunity to introduce soft landscaping or planting as potentially suggested by the appellant taking into account the previous situation prior to relocation of the fencing as shown. 12. The proposal would be contrary to LP Policy S3 that requires proposals to be of a scale and design that is compatible with the character, appearance and amenity of the part of the settlement in which it would be located as well as not conflicting with any other relevant policy within the LP. The proposal would also be contrary to LP Policy PD1 which requires development to be of high-quality design which respects the character, identity and context of the townscape and LP Policy HC10 which, as an overarching objective, seeks to ensure that the height, scale, form and design of proposals are in keeping with the scale and character of the site’s wider setting and location. Other Matters 13. I note an objection from Matlock Town Council. I have dealt with the matters raised within those comments within the main issues above. Conclusion 14. For the reasons outlined above, and taking into account all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Eleni Marshall INSPECTOR