Agenda item

Report of the Director (Governance).

This was an appeal against the refusal of Estate Management Consent for the erection and installation of a picket fence along the side and front boundary of this property. The application had been refused for the following reason:

‘The proposed boundary fencing to the front would form a prominent addition that would adversely affect the character and appearance of the property and street scene, detrimental to the amenities and values of this part of the Garden City and contrary to Policies EM2 and EM3 of the Estate Management Scheme.’

The proposal sought Estate Management consent for the erection and installation of a picket fence in front of the house along the side and front boundary.  This would involve the removal of the existing soft landscaping along the boundary with the highway.

The key issue in the determination of this appeal was the impact on the amenities and values of the surrounding area.  The impact on the residential amenity of adjoining occupiers was considered to be acceptable.

Policy EM3 of the Estate Management Scheme (EMS) referred to soft landscaping and stated that works to trees and hedgerows would only be allowed where it would not result in the loss of landscaping which would harm the character and amenities of the area and where sufficient justification for the works had been given or there were other considerations that applied.

The provision of generous landscaping and hedgerows within the town was what helped the town to retain its particular and unique character.  It was acknowledged that there was a need to prevent the erosion of landscape within the town and it was believed that the retention of frontages, hedgerows and trees were critical to preserve this character.  Officers considered that the complete removal of the hedge along the frontage of the site was considered to be detrimental to the soft landscaped character of the surrounding area, contrary to Policy EM3.

Policy EM2 outlined that proposals for new buildings would only be permitted where they did not have a detrimental impact on the amenities and values of the surrounding area.  Whilst policy EM2 applied to new buildings, it was considered that this was the most appropriate policy to assess the proposed fence against.  This policy expected that new buildings should respect the visual appearance of the area in terms of siting and scale and not result in a visually overly prominent element.

In regard to Policy EM2, Marsden Green was characterised by front boundary hedges.  The presence of a front and side boundary fence would be highly visible from Marsden Green which would be clearly contrary to the established character of the street scene.  The erection of a front boundary fence would introduce an alien and incongruous feature to the street scene and would alter the appearance to the front of the property and this part of Marsden Green which was considered to be detrimental to the street scene and therefore the amenities and values of the area. 

It was considered that the loss of the hedge and the proposed fence would alter the established character of the area and would have a detrimental impact on the amenities and values of the Estate Management Scheme.

The Panel concluded that the installation of a front and side boundary fence following the removal of the existing hedge along the front boundary would not reflect or be in keeping with the established character of Marsden Green.  It was considered that the appellant had not provided sufficient justification for the removal of the soft landscaping or the erection of a fence which would outweigh the harm that would result and that the proposal would detract from the amenities and values of the Estate Management Scheme and would be contrary to Policies EM2 and EM3.

It was moved by Councillor M.Larkins, seconded by Councillor M.Birleson and

RESOLVED:

(unanimous)

That the delegated decision be upheld and the appeal dismissed.

An informative would be added to the decision advising the appellant that if the existing hedge to the front of the site died or became seriously damaged or diseased, it should be replaced during the following planting season by a hedge planted in accordance with a specification previously agreed in writing by the Council, to avoid any enforcement action.

(Note: Councillor M.Cowan withdrew from the meeting for this item as he had commented on the original application).