A planning appeal for a nearly two-metre high wooden fence by the side of a house in Whittlesey has been won after it was refused due to “visual intrusion.”
Retrospective planning permission was submitted for the 1.85m fence in Yarwells Headland in September last year.
The fence had been erected around the building to act as a “safe, unrestricted, securely fenced play area” for a child, planning documents stated.
However, planners at Fenland District Council refused the application on the grounds of it being “detriment of the character of the area.”
They stated: “The host dwelling is situated on a prominent corner plot and the proposal is located significantly beyond the existing building line, creating a visual intrusion which is dominant in the streetscene by virtue of its location, stark design and scale, to the detriment of the character of the area and contrary to the Fenland Local Plan.”
Nine objections were received from residents.
Councillor Chris Boden also raised his concerns that the fence was “not only out of keeping but a real danger to traffic, to children on bicycles and to pedestrians.”
Highways did not raise any objections.
But an appeal by the applicant Lorraine Daniels made in February stated that the fence had “no detrimental impact to properties adjacent or opposite.”
Miss Daniels won her appeal earlier this month.
The appeal decision issued by inspector, Claire Searson, now reads: “The main issue is the effect of the fence upon the character and appearance of the area.
“The fence has been erected and as such the application is retrospectively seeking consent.
“However, while the location of the boundary fence has changed, the positioning and nature of the plot is as such that any enclosure necessary in order to afford enjoyment of the rear/side private garden area would be prominent and visible.
“The height of the fence and its general appearance is typical of a modern domestic enclosure. Its prominence could also be softened by landscaping, details of which could reasonably be secured by condition.
“I also saw that there were a number of corner properties on the estate with built up side walls and fences and as such the scheme before me is consistent in this regard.
“Taking the above into consideration, on balance, I therefore find that there is no harm to the character and appearance of the area from the development.”
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here