Front boundary wall and gates and changes to ground levels and side boundary fence

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 5 July 2018 by D Cramond BSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 13 July 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/Z5630/D/18/3200746 8 The Fairway, New Malden, KT3 4SP  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 Dr Mushriq al-Khayyat against the decision of the Council of the Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames.  The application Ref 18/14091/HOU, dated 24 January 2018, was refused by notice dated 22 March 2018.  The development proposed is front boundary wall and gates and changes to ground levels and side boundary fence. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. I use the Council’s description of development which is more precise than the varied descriptions on the application and appeal forms. 3. The development has been largely completed; this does not alter my approach to determining the merits of the proposal. Main Issue 4. The main issue is effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the locality. Reasons Character and appearance 5. The appeal property is a large detached dwelling in a generous plot. It lies within an area of established high quality residential character with a range of variously designed sizeable homes set in a spacious and sylvan environment which all comes together to form an area of extremely agreeable and generally informal appearance. The proposal is as described above. 6. The front walling at about 1 metre in height is white rendered with frequent piers sitting well above this and iron railings between the piers along with a metal gate arrangement reaching about 2 metres in height set between very substantial white rendered gate pillars of similar height. The whole scene is completely alien and demonstrates no suitable subtlety whatsoever through the use of these materials and this design and scale. Very few sizeable gates are in evidence locally. Almost all front boundary treatments are in soft landscape Appeal Decision APP/Z5630/D/18/3200746 2 form. Other than this incongruous frontage the scene is a visually restful one. The scheme has simply removed the characteristic sense of space and informality and predominance of soft landscape which is otherwise a real aesthetic trait of this locality. It is unacceptably jarring on the eye and the new forward modest planting which is in evidence is plainly not, and will not be, sufficient mitigation for this. 7. Policies CS8 and DM10 of the Council’s Core Strategy taken together call for, amongst other matters, well designed development, appropriate to its site and setting and of a suitable scale, appearance and character which would protect local distinctiveness and the qualities of neighbourhoods. I conclude that the appeal scheme would run contrary to these policies which mirror objectives embodied in the Council’s Residential Design SPD 2013. In this instance the development would not satisfactorily follow the pertinent guidance within the SPD albeit I do recognise that this document cannot be expected to cover every eventuality and should, at times, be treated with a degree of flexibility. Other matters 8. I have sympathy for the Appellant having, for one reason or another, progressed with works without planning permission. There has clearly been considerable expenditure on the project. Nevertheless, to be fair to all I have to determine matters as I would with a proposal which was not in situ and I would not be allowing an appeal for this work if I had been presented with plans-only rather than largely completed built-reality. 9. I appreciate the point about cars previously ‘beaching’ on the sloping second driveway. Overall levels may not have gone above the previous upper height but a sloping driveway has been blocked and ground raised and thus more front space is at the upper level which adds to my concerns. 10. I have no reason to doubt the Appellant’s comments on the legal ability, indeed requirement, to provide frontage planting and I did note most properties used part of the ‘verge’ for this. 11. Mention is made by the Appellant of other high built enclosures found locally. Certainly there are some walls (usually in dark brick) and fences to be seen but almost without exception they are simple, subtle and generally there to screen rear garden returns rather than to demark front garden areas. Given these variations I see no precedent or benchmark set for the appeal proposal and in any event I have to determine this case on its merits. 12. I have carefully considered all the points raised by the Appellant. However, taken individually or cumulatively these matters do not outweigh the concerns which I have in relation to the main issue identified above. 13. I confirm that policies in the National Planning Policy Framework have been considered. Key objectives of the document are to safeguard qualities of the built environment and the development plan policies which I cite mirror these. Overall conclusion 14. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal proposal would have unacceptable adverse effects on the character and appearance of the locality. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. D Cramond INSPECTOR