For gates to the frontage of the driveway
📊
See the success rate & inspector analytics
Free to view — just create an account, no payment needed.
Sign Up FreeTechnical Issues Heatmap
Character & Appearance
Residential Amenity
Inspector’s Reasoning
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 20 September 2022
by Tim Wood BA(Hons) BTP MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 20th October 2022
Appeal Ref: APP/W1905/D/22/3299211
7 Biggs Grove Road, Cheshunt, Herts EN7 6XX
• 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 Patrick Jokhoo against the decision of Broxbourne Borough
Council.
• The application Ref 07/22/0126/HF, dated 3 February 2022, was refused by notice
dated 28 March 2022.
• The development proposed is for gates to the frontage of the driveway.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Preliminary Matter
2. Notwithstanding the description of the proposal, it is clear that the appeal
scheme includes the erection of railings as well as gates.
Main Issue
3. The main issue in this appeal is the effects of the proposal on the character and
appearance of the area.
Reasons
4. The appeal relates to this detached 2 storey house which is located within a
residential area. The area (Higgins Road and the roads running off it) is made
up of houses of recent construction in a variety of styles and forms including
detached houses and terraces. Whilst the designs vary, a common theme
within the area that I observed is that the great majority of houses have
frontages which are significantly open and provide parking for cars. Some
frontages have an element of planting. Contrary to the appellant’s assertion, I
consider that the open style of the frontages is a distinct characteristic of the
houses within this area and adds positively to its character and appearance.
5. There are some examples of houses which have the privacy of their rear
gardens protected by fencing/walls of a height sufficient to prevent
overlooking. These occur where houses are sited on corners and are not
provided across the frontages. In my judgement these are not similar to the
appeal scheme.
6. The proposal would involve the provision of metal railings and sliding gates of
1.74m height across the entire frontage of the appeal site (around 14m in
Appeal Decision APP/W1905/D/22/3299211
2
width). I consider that this would have a considerable visual presence within
the street-scene and would not harmonise with the character and appearance
that I have observed. Notwithstanding that the house is taller and set on
slightly higher ground, when seen within the locality, I consider that the
proposal would have a significant and negative effect on the open character of
the frontages within this area.
7. The appellant seeks to draw support from the Council’s Supplementary
Planning Guidance. Whilst I accept that the gates and railing would allow views
through and that they would define the boundary, I consider that the
overwhelming visual effect would be negative, for the reasons set out. I did
observe some much lower railings and a gate within frontages of the area but
these have a considerably less impact on the area than the appeal scheme
would.
8. The appellant also refers to the possibility of constructing gates and railings
under Permitted Development. These would be to a maximum height of 1m
and so would have considerably less impact than the appeal scheme. As such,
this has little effect on my consideration of the appeal scheme.
9. I have taken account of all other mattes raised but find that the proposal would
have a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the area. These
effects would not be outweighed by any benefits that the proposal may bring
with it. As a consequence, the proposal is contrary to Policies DSC1 and DSC2
of the Broxbourne Local Plan and there are no other matters that outweigh that
conflict. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.
T Wood
INSPECTOR
Expert Representation
Don't leave your appeal to chance.
Inspectors are inconsistent. We build a technical defense using precedents from our 182,000+ case archive.
No win, no fee Householder representation — you only pay if you win.