Lychgate with pergola timber structure and side and front hedges behind the front low boundary brick walls and piers at 900mm h

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 2 April 2019 by Sarah Colebourne MA, MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 11th April 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/T5150/D/19/3221748 35 Medway Gardens, Wembley, HA0 2RW • 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 Leszek Anisko against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Brent. • The application Ref 18/4410, dated 12 November 2018, was refused by notice dated 14 January 2019. • The development proposed is described as ‘a lychgate with pergola timber structure and side and front hedges behind the front low boundary brick walls and piers at 900mm h’. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Reasons 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. 3. 35 Medway Gardens is a semi-detached house within a residential area of mainly inter-war dwellings. Although the appellant has provided extensive information relating to the history of Sudbury as a small farming community, the predominant character of the area around Medway Gardens now is built up and suburban, albeit leafy and spacious. No 35 is one of a number dwellings in this street built in a mock Tudor style with a steeply pitched roof and a white render and black timber finish with a dark red brick base, set behind modest sized front gardens. It retains what appears to be its original front door. It is an attractive property which contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area. 4. The pergola has already been constructed and occupies approximately half of the area over the front path, providing the main pedestrian access to the front door. It is proposed that it would be finished in a dark colour to match the timber in the dwelling. It is set in low brick pillars, the front two forming part of the low front boundary wall. The proposal also includes the planting of side and front hedges of approximately 1.5 – 1.8m in height. 5. Whilst I noted that there are other high hedges within the surrounding area, most front gardens have low boundary walls and are open in character. I did not see any other similar pergola structures within front gardens in this street. The height of the structure introduces visual clutter to the front entrance of the property and this detracts from the attractive appearance of the dwelling and the street scene. Its design does not reflect the more finely detailed examples Appeal Decision APP/T5150/D/19/3221748 2 of traditional lychgates provided by the appellant. Instead it has a chunky, rustic appearance that would be more suited to a traditional cottage rather than this suburban dwelling. Even if the proposed planting eventually screened the pergola from view, this would have an enclosing effect which would be detrimental to the predominant openness of the street scene. 6. Although there have not been any objections from neighbouring residents and some have indicated their support to the appellant, that does not provide justification for the proposal or outweigh the harm that I have found. If allowed, the proposal could set an undesirable precedent for further structures in the area which would exacerbate the harm caused by this proposal. 7. For these reasons I conclude that the development, by reason of its siting, scale and design, harms the character and appearance of the area, contrary to development plan policy DMP1 in the London Borough of Brent Local Plan Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (2016) which seeks to ensure that development complements the locality. There are no material considerations that justify determining the appeal otherwise and the appeal should be dismissed. Sarah Colebourne Inspector