For the removal of four brick gate piers and the installation of two 1.7m high entrance gates at the front of the property

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 6 February 2018 by Mr C J Tivey BSc (Hons) BPl MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 19 February 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/K3605/D/17/3186552 15 Woodend Park, Cobham KT11 3BX  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr Pasq Mingoia against the decision of Elmbridge Borough Council.  The application Ref 2017/1586, dated 17 May 2017, was refused by notice dated 4 August 2017.  The development proposed is for the removal of four brick gate piers and the installation of two 1.7m high entrance gates at the front of the property. Decision 1. I dismiss the appeal. Procedural Matter 2. The description of proposed works includes the removal of four brick gate piers which were in situ at the time of my site visit. I have assessed the proposal based upon the plans that are before me, and consequently, have determined the appeal on this basis. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 4. Woodend Park is characterised by predominantly large, detached houses situated on generous plots with wide frontages. Some front gardens are quite open whereas others are more vegetated, including some with high mature boundary hedging. However, with the exception of the presence of a single gate to the entrance of 31 Woodend Park, hard forms of boundary treatment and gates are largely absent from the street scene, ultimately however each case must be assessed on its own merits. 5. I acknowledge that one of the main reasons for proposing the gates is to provide security to the property and its owners, which is supported within both the National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’) and the Development Plan, specifically Policy DM2 of the Elmbridge Local Plan Development Management Plan April 2015 (DMP). However, DMP policy DM2 Appeal Decision APP/K3605/D/17/3186552 2 also requires proposals to preserve or enhance the character of the area and for proposals to be based on an understanding of local character. 6. Due to the fact that security is cited as one of the main reasons behind the proposal, I am not convinced that the gates would be left open (and therefore largely retracted out of view) during the daytime as it would defeat the object of their installation, therefore their presence would be apparent for most of the time. The fact that the hedgerow in place at the front of the appeal site is well established and results in approximately 80% of the frontage being enclosed is also not justification in itself to fully enclose it. 7. The high brick piers that were previously proposed have been removed from the appeal scheme that is before me and I accept that the proposed gates would consist of narrow metal bars, but nonetheless their presence would not go unnoticed. Whilst the visual impact of the proposal would be less than that previously before my colleague, nonetheless the gates would still give rise to a semi-permanent sense of enclosure, hard in appearance and texture, and contrary to the prevailing verdant and generally open character of development within the locality. 8. It may be that the inclusion of such gates to the property would enable it to become a more safe and secure environment, but I have been provided with no evidence to demonstrate that there is an issue with crime within the locality. The Council raise no issues with regard to the impact of the proposal upon neighbouring amenity, the impact upon trees or highway safety and I have been given no substantive reason to come to a different conclusion on these matters. However in the overall planning balance, these factors in favour of the scheme do not outweigh the harm that the proposal would give rise to the character and appearance of the area. 9. The proposal conflicts with paragraph b. of DMP Policy DM2, as well as Policy CS17 of the Elmbridge Core Strategy 2011 which seek to ensure that all development proposals must be based on an understanding of local character of the area which should be preserved or enhanced and respond to the positive features of individual locations. The proposal is also in conflict with one of the Framework’s Core Planning Principles which is to always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. Conclusion 10. Therefore for the reasons given above, and having regard to all other matters raised by the appellant, I conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect upon the character and appearance of the area and that the appeal be dismissed. C J Tivey INSPECTOR