Fence appeal wins on permitted development fallback

A fence appeal in South Holland has been allowed after an Inspector gave significant weight to a realistic permitted development fallback under Part 2, Class A of the GPDO.

Appeal 6010039 concerned a close-boarded fence at Green Gables, West Pinchbeck. The fence had already been erected when Inspector R Gee visited the site, and South Holland District Council’s refusal centred on its effect on the character and appearance of the open Fenland landscape.

The important point was not that the existing fence itself qualified as permitted development. Instead, the appellant showed that a closely comparable fence could be repositioned further inside the site without planning permission. The Inspector found that fallback realistic and capable of implementation, and gave it significant weight in favour of the appeal.

Fence appeal turns on the permitted development fallback

The appeal site is a detached home in a large plot at the junction of Holland Chase and Dozen’s Bank. The Inspector described the wider setting as part of the Fens, with a rural, flat and open landscape, extensive views and large skies.

That context mattered because a substantial boundary enclosure could appear at odds with the openness of the surroundings. The fence was particularly visible at close range. However, the Inspector found that its natural timber finish and simple design reduced its visual prominence and prevented it from appearing unduly urban.

The decisive extra factor was the fallback. The appellant argued that the fence could be moved further within the site and erected without planning permission under Schedule 2, Part 2, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015.

Planning Geek’s Class A guide to gates, fences, walls and other means of enclosure explains the underlying permitted development limits. The familiar height rules are important, but so is the precise relationship with a highway used by vehicular traffic.

Why the fallback carried significant weight

A fallback position is relevant only if there is more than a theoretical possibility that it could actually be implemented. That principle appears repeatedly in planning decisions, but the strength of the fallback still depends on the evidence and on how comparable it is with the development under appeal.

Here, the Inspector accepted that the alternative fence could realistically be erected further inside the site without planning permission. Its visual effects would be broadly similar because a close-boarded fence would remain apparent within the same open landscape.

That mattered. If refusing permission would simply cause a very similar lawful enclosure to appear nearby, the planning benefit of refusal may be limited. The Inspector therefore gave significant weight to the permitted development fallback and concluded that the appeal fence did not cause material harm to the character or appearance of the area.

The decision is a useful reminder that a fallback does not have to be physically identical to the appeal scheme. What matters is whether it is lawful in prospect, realistically capable of being carried out and sufficiently comparable to affect the planning judgement.

It also does not mean that every fence near a road can be moved a short distance and automatically become permitted development. The relevant limits in Part 2, Class A still have to be satisfied on the actual facts of the site. Planning Geek’s recent coverage has also highlighted that the meaning of a highway can be wider than a publicly maintained carriageway, so the relationship between the enclosure and the route needs to be checked carefully.

Character harm was limited in the open Fenland setting

The Council’s objection focused on character and appearance. The Inspector accepted that the enclosure was substantial and that it would contrast with the site’s predominantly open rural surroundings.

However, visibility is not the same thing as unacceptable harm. The timber treatment and uncomplicated design meant the fence did not read as an intrusive urban feature. It was visible at close range, but it would not become a conspicuous element in longer views across the landscape.

That led the Inspector to find compliance with Policies 2 and 3 of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan, which seek high-quality development that responds to local character.

The fallback then reinforced that conclusion. The planning system was not being asked to choose between the existing fence and an entirely open boundary. On the Inspector’s findings, the realistic alternative was another close-boarded fence in a slightly different position with broadly similar visual effects.

Highway safety did not justify refusing the fence

Interested parties also raised highway safety concerns. The fence reduced visibility for vehicles leaving Green Gables, but the Council itself had not identified a highway safety objection.

The Inspector noted that the road serves a limited number of properties and considered vehicle speeds and movements likely to be low. There were no footways, but the rural character of the road was likely to encourage drivers to proceed more cautiously.

On the evidence available, the Inspector found no unacceptable highway safety harm. A separate concern that a fire hydrant would sit behind the fence was outside the remit of the planning decision.

This part of the decision is worth treating carefully. It is not authority for the proposition that visibility at a private access is unimportant. Different traffic speeds, road geometry, pedestrian movements or highway evidence could easily produce a different result.

A previous fence appeal did not decide this one

South Holland referred the Inspector to an earlier dismissed appeal, APP/A2525/W/24/3356622. Inspector Gee distinguished it because that earlier case involved not only a fence but also a change of use of land.

The distinction is practical. Appeal decisions are fact-sensitive, and a fence considered as one element of a wider unauthorised or proposed use can raise different issues from a means of enclosure considered on its own.

That is particularly relevant when looking for appeal precedents. A superficially similar photograph or height is not enough. The lawful use of the land, the position of the boundary, highway status, landscape context and the availability of a fallback can all alter the outcome.

What the fence appeal means in practice

The main lesson from appeal 6010039 is that permitted development can matter even where the development actually before the Inspector needs planning permission.

An applicant facing refusal should consider whether there is a lawful alternative that would have similar planning effects. If there is, it should be described precisely, supported by the GPDO wording and shown to be a realistic course of action rather than an abstract possibility.

For fences, walls and gates, that exercise starts with Part 2, Class A. The height limits, the relationship with a highway and any removal of permitted development rights must all be checked against the site itself. Where the fallback is central to the case, obtaining a lawful development certificate can provide greater certainty, although this appeal shows that a certificate is not always necessary before an Inspector can give a fallback meaningful weight.

The full appeal decision is available through AppealBase, with the Planning Inspectorate appeal record providing the official case reference. The decision was issued on 6th October 2026.

For the underlying rules, see Planning Geek’s Part 2 Class A guidance and our broader planning appeals guidance.