On February 16, 2024, plans were submitted by Mr Paul Harding in relation to a development at the bungalow at 8 Elmwood Avenue.
The initial planning application sought to remove a brick wall and replace it with two concrete gravel boards, posts and 1.8m high close board fence panels. The proposal would have a total internal height of 1.9m maximum (2.4m external maximum) reducing to an internal height of 1.2m (1.5m external) at the front of the property.
The replacement retaining wall and fence would have three outside boundaries with the public highway and the fence, concrete posts and retaining gravel boards would reduce in height from the northwest corner further from the property to the front of the property.
READ MORE: Fresh plans to redevelop old Ringwood cinema and nightclub
After permission was denied by New Forest District Council in April, Mr Harding appealed the decision in August.
Permission was refused due to the fence creating a “harsh and stark boundary feature” that would be an “intrusive element with a harmful visual impact”.
8 Elmwood Avenue (Image: Google Maps)
In the appeal decision, made in December, made by inspector V Goldberg, a report still found that the proposed fence would appear “stark and imposing” among other properties on the road, “the impact of the fence would be particularly imposing given its prominent position in the road and the considerable length of the boundary.”
The inspector added that, while vegetation would appear above the fence line, this would “not negate the stark appearance of the fence”.
READ MORE: Developer launches attempt to replaced Ringwood bungalow
The fact that the current wall forms part of the street scene was also a concern for the inspector, who said: “boundary fencing is not characteristic of front-facing boundary treatments in the street scene”.
The street is primarily formed of bungalows surrounded by hedges and low fences or brick walls.
The inspector concluded by stating: “The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.”
To view the plans and decision notice in full, click here.