Extension of brick piers, new metal gate and grill over existing brick wall with a pedestrian gate

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 September 2018 by K E Down MA(Oxon) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 19 September 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/N1920/D/18/3205189 47 Newlands Avenue, Radlett, WD7 8EJ  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 Zygi Kamasa against the decision of Hertsmere Borough Council.  The application Ref 18/0220/HSE, dated 2 February 2018, was refused by notice dated 5 April 2018.  The development proposed is the extension of brick piers, new metal gate and grill over existing brick wall with a pedestrian gate. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. There is one main issue which is the effect of the proposed brick piers, metal gates and railings on the character and appearance of Newlands Avenue. Reasons 3. Newlands Avenue is a long private road characterised by large detached houses set on extensive plots. In the vicinity of the appeal dwelling the layout is spacious and the area well vegetated, with mature trees and hedges giving it a semi-rural character. Some front boundaries are open but most comprise low walls, wooden picket fences or high hedgerows. In a small number of cases high metal gates are flanked by high hedges but in this part of the street high railings appear to be absent. Overall the character is verdant with a predominance of soft boundary treatments and a mixture of visual openness and enclosure. 4. The appeal dwelling is large and currently undergoing significant extension and alteration. It lies in a row of other large dwellings of varying design but set on a similar building line and with a similar front boundary line. The existing boundary, which amply defines ownership, comprises low brick piers and a low wall topped by low railings between which are low metal gates. The overall height is about 1m. It is proposed to extend the brick piers to just over 2m in height and replace the existing railings and gates with others ranging between Appeal Decision APP/N1920/D/18/3205189 2 about 1.7m and 1.95m in height. A new pedestrian gate would also be provided. 5. Part D of the Council’s Draft Planning and Design Guide (the Design Guide) 2016, makes clear that new boundary treatments should reflect the character of the area and help create and enhance the local sense of place by maintaining consistency in the area and not dominating or closing off the street scene. 6. Owing to the height of the proposed gates and railings coupled with the materials, the impression would be of an uncharacteristically harsh boundary that, notwithstanding that some visual permeability would remain, would appear visually obstructive in the street scene, giving the property a segregated and fortified appearance. Whilst high hedges in the vicinity separate and hide dwellings from the street these, as a result of their soft and natural quality, enhance the appearance of the area, reinforcing its verdant, semi-rural character. Overall, the proposed boundary treatment would be an unduly severe and incongruous element that detracted from the green and spacious character and appearance of the area. 7. The appellant cites other examples of metal gates and railings in Newlands Avenue, including at No 13, which was referred to by the Council in its report relating to an application at No 18, where it states that gates and railings are a feature of the street. However, this and the other examples given are all a significant distance from the appeal dwelling and not visible in the same street view. These do not therefore set a precedent for the appeal proposal. 8. It is also suggested that the presence of existing metal gates and railings at the site, the fact that the proposed replacements would, at a maximum of 1.95m, “only minimally exceed” the 1.5m maximum height suggested in the Design Guide and that the railings would be porous, allowing views and natural surveillance of the frontage of the dwelling, would be reasons to justify the proposed development. However, the low height of the existing boundary allows a significantly greater degree of visual openness than the proposed boundary which would clearly be much higher, obstructing sightlines and creating an unsympathetic visual barrier, albeit one through which the dwelling could be seen. 9. Finally, it is suggested that the Design Guide is generic and not consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). However, Chapter 12 of the NPPF (2018) emphasises the importance of good design and the requirement that development should be visually attractive and sympathetic to the local character. This is reflected in the guidance set out in the Design Guide to which I therefore give significant weight. 10. It is concluded on the main issue that the proposed gates and railings would have a materially harmful effect on the character and appearance of Newlands Avenue. In consequence they would conflict with Policies SP1 and CS22 of the Hertsmere Local Plan Core Strategy (CS), 2013, Policy SADM30 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Plan, adopted in November 2016, the NPPF and the Design Guide which, taken together and amongst other things, expect front boundaries to be of a high quality design which makes a positive contribution to the built and natural environment, responds to local Appeal Decision APP/N1920/D/18/3205189 3 character and respects the visual amenity of the area. In particular, boundary treatments should be appropriate, connect the development to its environment and contribute towards a harmonious street scene. 11. For the reasons set out above and having regard to all other matters raised, including the representations of third parties which in one case refers to a different location, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. K E Down INSPECTOR