Boundary fence, access gates and associated soft landscaping

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 17 August 2026 by K Winnard LL.B Hons Solicitor an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 28 August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6012503 Hall Farm, High Street, Marton, Warwickshire CV23 9RR • 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 Neil Phillips-Gore against the decision of Rugby Borough Council. • The application Ref is R26/0027 • The development is described as Boundary fence, access gates and associated soft landscaping. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. There have been changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) since the determination of the planning application. Having reviewed them I am satisfied that as far as their substance relates to the main issue in this appeal, further consultation with the main parties would not be necessary since they have not materially affected or prejudiced the cases of the parties. 3. The works, the subject of the appeal proposal have already been completed. The appeal application now seeks to regularise this development in addition to including amended access gates. Given this I have removed the word ‘retrospective’ from the banner heading above as this is not an act of development. Main Issues 4. The main issue in the appeal is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host building and the area. Reasons 5. The appeal property is a large detached dwelling located on a prominent corner plot at the junction of High Street and Louisa Ward Close in a rural village setting. The area where the appeal property is sited is diverse in character and appearance with a variety of dwelling styles, age and design. Whilst there is also a variety of boundary treatments the general character in this area is one of open or low front boundary treatments. This together with planting at many front boundaries provides for a notably green and spacious character reflective of the rural location. 6. The development is a high continuous boundary treatment which extends along High Street and around the corner onto Louisa Ward Close to enclose the relatively large garden of the appeal property. Coupled with its slightly elevated position to the footway, it is a solid feature which does not relate well to the open frontages, Appeal Decision 6012503 2 walls and soft landscaping found generally in this area. By virtue of its height, length and modern anthracite grey finish it is not sympathetic to its surroundings and detracts from the prevailing character and appearance of the area. As a result due to its overall extent, height and prominence it is an incongruous and uncharacteristic feature within this setting. 7. Whilst shrubs and trees have been planted behind the fence, they have yet to mature and the development appears as an alien harsh urban enclosure within a wider environment notable for its green rural qualities. Despite the planting already undertaken and the additional planting now proposed by the appellant, I consider it highly unlikely that given its positioning behind the fence this would sufficiently reduce the adverse visual impact or provide effective screening in views from the road. 8. I am advised that the fence is in the same position and lower than a stone wall and wooden fence that was previously in place for many years and which were removed. Whilst the appeal site may have been enclosed previously, on the information before me the combination of the wall and timber boarded fence of a lighter colour and a style more reflective of an open rural area was less prominent than the fence the subject of this appeal. As such the historic arrangement present at the appeal site does not justify the harm caused by the present development. 9. There are examples of high boarded fencing within the village which I noted during my site visit. In the main, whilst close boarded fences, they were of a more natural coloured rural style with a softer visual appearance. Further they were of a lesser scale than the fencing found at the appeal property. As such I do not find these examples to be comparable so as to justify the development before me. 10. For the above reasons I conclude that the boundary fencing is out of keeping with the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area. Accordingly, the development is in conflict with Policy SDC1 of the Rugby Borough Council Local Plan 2011-2031 which seeks to ensure that new development is of a design that responds to the character of the surrounding area in which it is situated. I also find it to be in conflict with the aims and objectives of the Framework which requires development to be sympathetic to local character. 11. I accordingly dismiss the appeal. K Winnard INSPECTOR