New gates and railings to the front elevation

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 April 2018 by Les Greenwood MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 23 April 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/B1930/D/18/3194814 2 Oakfield Road, Harpenden AL5 2NE  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 and Mrs V Imondi against the decision of St Albans City and District Council.  The application Ref 5/17/2655, dated 20 September 2017, was refused by notice dated 9 November 2017.  The development proposed is new gates and railings to the front elevation. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for new gates and railings to the front elevation in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 5/17/2655, dated 20 September 2017, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 21819A-01-P3 and 21819A-10-P3. 3) The wrought iron gates and railings hereby permitted shall not be installed or maintained other than in accordance with details of colour and finish which have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Main issue 2. The main issue is whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Harpenden Conservation Area and Oakfield Road. Reasons 3. 2 Oakfield Road is a large and handsome detached house sitting in a substantial plot at the junction with Redbourn Lane. Both No 2 and the house on the corner opposite, 5 Oakfield Road, are included within the conservation area together with other houses on Redbourn Lane, but the rest of Oakfield Road is outside the designated area. The Council’s Conservation Area Character Statement for Harpenden advises that this area was mainly built up Appeal Decision APP/B1930/D/18/3194814 2 starting in the 1930s, with spaciously planned and well-landscaped plots. Both Oakfield Road and Redbourn Lane retain a leafy character. 4. No 2 has a low wall along the front boundary to Oakfield Road and high black metal railings along its side boundary to Redbourn Lane. Those railings are largely hidden behind the roadside hedge so have little visual impact. The proposal is to install wrought iron railings on top of the front wall plus matching gates and a short return along the side boundary to the next door house. 5. There are high walls and gates to the front of several nearby properties on Redbourn Lane and also across the street at No 5, all within the conservation area. Front boundaries to other properties on Oakfield Road, outside the conservation area, tend to be more open but many still have low walls. The proposed railings and gates would not be overly tall (mainly just over a metre high, with a maximum of about 1.65m) and would allow views through to the landscaped front garden. The use of wrought iron would create an attractive, high quality enclosure. Taking these points into account, I find that the proposal would not be intrusive, overly defensive or out of character with other enclosures in the local area. 6. I conclude that the proposal would preserve the character and the appearance of the conservation area and Oakfield Road. It accords with the aims of St Albans District Local Plan Review Policies 69, 72, 74 and 85 and the National Planning Policy Framework, to secure a high standard of design and materials which are sympathetic to the surroundings and to the conservation area. As I have found the proposal to be satisfactory in conservation terms, it is not necessary for me to examine the appellants’ security justification. 7. I impose a condition specifying the relevant plans to provide certainty. A further condition requiring the approval of colour and finish is necessary to protect the character and appearance of the conservation area. The Council’s report suggests that an additional condition may be needed, requiring the gates to have an automatic opening system. Oakfield Road does not, however, appear to be heavily trafficked and I am satisfied that this matter can reasonably be left to owner/occupiers without unduly prejudicing the safety of highway users. 8. For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should succeed. Les Greenwood INSPECTOR