Installation of 1270 millimetre high boundary fencing (retrospective)

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 20 February 2019 by A McCormack BSc (Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 13th March 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/M5450/D/19/3221379 26 Acacia Close, Stanmore HA7 3JR • 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 Costel Cozma against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Harrow. • The application Ref P/4605/18, dated 5 October 2018, was refused by notice dated 10 December 2018. • The development proposed is installation of 1270 millimetre high boundary fencing (retrospective). Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. The development proposed has been installed at the appeal property. As such, the application was for retrospective planning approval. Therefore, at the site visit I was able to see and assess the development in situ. As a result, I have determined this appeal in that context. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. Reasons 4. The local area and streetscene consists predominantly of a mix of two-storey semi-detached properties and town houses with open front gardens and space. Many boundaries between properties are defined by hard and soft landscaping with space for parking incorporated into the front garden areas. From my observations, other than the appeal property, no properties on Acacia Close have gated entrances. The extensive trees and shrubbery interspersed with low front boundary treatments provides a soft visual impression within the streetscene. The predominant lack of front boundary treatments in the locality also provides natural surveillance to the footpath which runs along the front of the properties. 5. Having regard to the above, the front boundary treatment installed at the appeal property is not a ‘low key’ addition to the streetscene and is contrary to the open frontages which prevail in Acacia Close. The railings appear as an obtrusive form of development and are in a prominent position at the entry into Appeal Decision APP/M5450/D/19/3221379 2 the cul-de-sac. Furthermore, the railings are not spaced out significantly enough and this contributes to their obtrusive appearance within their setting. It is also noted that the railings exceed the permitted development height of 1 metre for front boundary treatments by 270 millimetres (mm). As such, by reason of their height and appearance, I consider the railings to be unsympathetic to the character and appearance of the local area and detract from the suburban qualities of the street scene. Furthermore, I consider the openness of the surrounding area to be significantly eroded by the railings 6. Although it is said that the railings do not form a solid fence or wall and therefore are not as visually intrusive in the streetscene and that the greater part of the railings are permitted development, the proposal must be considered in its context and on its merits. The appellant argues that only the additional 270mm of railings height should be considered in assessing their impact on the surrounding area as the 1 metre high railings would be permitted development. In practical terms, this is difficult and somewhat unreasonable to assess. Whilst I appreciate that railings up to 1 metre in height would be permitted development, the railings before me exceeds this and therefore must be assessed accordingly and as a whole. 7. I note the appellant’s point that there is no Article 4 Direction or any other measure to provide controls for this type of development in the area. As such, there is nothing to prevent walls or fences being erected in future. Nonetheless, having regard to the provisions of permitted development rights in this regard, I find that developments which exceed these rights, such as the one before me, are still subject to planning controls. 8. I have taken particular note of the reasons given for the installation of the railings. I understand the problems experienced by the appellant in terms of security and the protection of their property and family. However, this has limited bearing on the land use merits of the development. Moreover, I do not consider that these security problems outweigh the harm I have identified. 9. Consequently, I conclude that the development has a significant detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. Therefore, it is contrary to Policies 7.4B and 7.6B of The London Plan 2016, Core Policy S1B of the Harrow Core Strategy 2012, Policy DM1 of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan 2013 and the relevant sections of the Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Document – Residential Design Guide 2010. Conclusion 10. For the above reasons, and having had regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Andrew McCormack INSPECTOR