Boundary fences and pillars at 2 Farr Walk, Hartlepool

What was proposed

The application proposed boundary pillars and fences of varying heights, including a two-metre internal fence and access gate, partly retrospectively.

“The proposed internal fence would be set in by approximately 2m from the curtilage of the host property and would extend from roughly in line with the front elevation of the host property to the rear boundary (approximately 17.7m in length). The proposed internal fence would have a width of approximately 3.1m and would feature an access gate (of a similar height) in the western/front elevation.”

Officer report

The site

The site is the front, side and rear garden of an end-terraced corner property beside Farr Walk and Wynyard Road.

“The application site relates to the front, side and rear garden of 2 Farr Walk, which is a west facing end terraced property occupying a corner plot on Farr Walk/Wynyard Road, in Hartlepool. The host property adjoins No. Farr Walk to the north, whilst No. Wynyard Road is adjacent to the east/rear. Beyond the footpath of Farr Walk to the front/west, is No. Farr Walk.”

“Prior to the enclosures being erected that formed the consideration of refused application H/2025/0103, the previous and established side and rear boundary are understood to have consisted of low level brick walls with a height of approximately 0.7m, in common with other boundaries throughout the street scenes of Wynyard Road and Farr Walk.”

Officer report

Earlier application and enforcement

An earlier two-metre retrospective boundary fence application was refused, followed by an enforcement notice and an unsuccessful late appeal.

“H/2025/0103 – Erection of a 2m high boundary fence (retrospective). Refused at the planning committee meeting of 20 th August 2025, for the following reason:”

“In late November 2025, the applicant appealed against the LPA’s decision to refuse the planning application (H/2025/0103) however the appeal was turned away by the Planning Inspectorate in early December 2025 as it was deemed that the appeal submission was out of time to appeal.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the amended scheme reduced height and visual impact, and permitted development rights provided significant fallback weight.

“Although the application site forms part of a street scene characterised predominantly by low-level boundary treatments which contribute positively to the openness and visual continuity of the area, it is acknowledged that the current proposal represents a notable improvement over the previously refused scheme, particularly in respect of the reduction in height and overall visual impact of the boundary fences and pillars adjacent to the main footpaths of Wynyard Road…”

“Whilst it is considered that the amended/reduced boundary fences and pillars (approx. 1.4m in height) and internal 2m (approx.) high fence would still appear out of keeping with the prevailing character of the surrounding area and would not represent an enhancement to the street scene, in undertaking the required planning balance, significant weight is attributed to the fallback position afforded by permitted development rights, which would allow for boundary…”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Traffic and Transport found the scheme acceptable, while the Landscape Architect considered it an improvement and supported a recessive finish.

“HBC Traffic and Transport: The proposed scheme is acceptable from a highways point of view.”

“The current proposals are an improvement on the previously refused scheme. Should the scheme be deemed acceptable, full details including finish should be provided. A visually recessive colour could reduce visual impacts further.”

Officer report

Objections received

Two objections concerned delaying enforcement, painting the unauthorised fence, harm to the street scene and inconsistent treatment of planning breaches.

“The application has been advertised by way of a site notice and notification letters to 30 individual neighbouring properties. To date, there have been two objections received.”

“Strategic move from the applicant to delay Council’s Enforcement action and powers • Applicant is painting the unauthorised fence • Out of keeping with street scene and surrounding area • Inconsistency with other breaches of planning control.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant and an objector were absent, so no representations were made at the meeting.

Member debate

A Member said the application showed applicants seeking advice from officers, and Councillor Little moved approval, seconded by Councillor Thompson.

“In general debate, a Member commented that this application was a good example of applicants seeking advice from officers. Councillor Little moved that this application be approved as per the officer recommendation. This was seconded by Councillor Thompson.”

Minutes

The vote

The committee approved the application by a majority vote using a show of hands.

“The application was approved by majority by show of hands. Decision: Planning Permission Approved CONDITIONS AND REASONS”

Minutes

The decision and conditions

Planning permission was approved with conditions requiring compliance with the plans, reduced boundary heights, and dark brown close-boarded timber fencing.

“Within a period of 3 months from the date of the decision notice, the existing boundary treatment adjacent to the public footpaths of Wynyard Road (south) and Farr Walk (west) and to the boundary with 100 Wynyard Road (east), shall be amended and reduced in height in accordance with the details hereby approved (and as identified on Dwg. No. PL/PELV, Proposed Elevations, received by the Local Planning Authority on 20th March 2026).”

“Notwithstanding the submitted details, the materials of the development hereby approved shall accord with those stipulated on the approved plans (contained within condition 1 of this decision notice) and the proposed sections of fencing (both external and internal) shall comprise close boarded timber fencing only (to match the existing fencing) and shall be painted/stained in a dark brown colour. In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure a satisfactory development.”

Minutes