Installation of 1800mm brick fence, 3D fencing panels and gate

1 Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15 May 2019 by J Somers BSocSci (Planning) MA (HEC) MRTPI IHBC an Inspector appointed by the Sec retary of State Decision Date: 1st July 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/B5480/W/19/3225345 16 Palm Road, Romford RM7 7AR • 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 Ms Patricia Poplawska against the decision of the London Borough of Havering. • The application, ref. P1948.18, dated 27 December 2018, was refused by notice dated 13 February 2019. • The proposal is for the installation of 1800mm brick fence, 3D fencing panels and gate. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. It is noted that the appellant’s Application Form and Appeal Form refer to the erection of a side boundary fence, however this component of the scheme is not mentioned in the Council’s Decision Notice or discussed within any of the submitted appeal statements. As the matter in dispute revolves around the erection of a front boundary wall to the appeal property, I have made my decision on this element only. Main issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the locality. Reasons 4. The appeal property is a two storey brick semi-detached dwelling that lies in a street of single dwellinghouses that date from the late nineteenth to early twentieth centuries. Whilst there is a variety of dwelling types along Palm Road there is a consistent building line and setback with small front gardens with dwarf brick boundary walls of approximately 1 metre in height with piers reaching 1.2-1.5 metres in height. Bricks are the predominant materials used along the street which matches the colour of the dwellinghouse and range from mixed London stock to red brick. Where railings are utilised, they are more traditional in appearance. The low boundary walls enable an open aspect to the Appeal Decision: APP/B5480/W/19/3225345 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 2 front gardens, many of which are planted which is a positive attribute to the character of the street scene. 5. I acknowledge the appellant’s examples of taller front boundary walls in the surrounding area, however many of these relate to larger properties found within surrounding streets where the proportions and size of front gardens are different, meaning that a taller wall is more justifiable in these locations. In this particular street scene the character is of small front gardens with low boundary walls, and hence a wall of 1.8 metres tall would appear noticeably taller and disproportionate to the front garden and therefore would have an incongruous appearance within this particular context. Whilst I note 2 examples given along Palm Road1 of taller boundary treatments one of these is a front entrance gate to a driveway leading to a dwellinghouse to the rear, and the other is a side boundary wall which is allowed to be 1.8metres tall under permitted development rights. As such, I am not convinced that the examples from the surrounding area are analogous to the appeal site and I therefore give these examples little weight. 6. Given the predominant use of traditional brick for boundary walls which match the colour of the dwellinghouse, and have a traditional form and material, the proposed use of grey brick with 3D metal mesh inserts has a poor appearance which is alien to this particular residential environment. Whilst there may be examples in the surrounding areas of modern boundary fencing, these are typically to the front of modern dwellinghouses and do not represent the character of this particular street scene. The proposed front boundary wall gives an uncomfortable and stark appearance within the street scene which is very defensive in appearance along with the proposed pedestrian gate which is completely solid. Whilst I acknowledge comments that the fence would be see- through, the open aspect to the front garden would be removed as a result of the height of the wall when seen amongst the context of adjoining and surrounding properties within the street scene. The materials utilised are quite poor and have little relationship to the inherent traditional character of the street scene and would be inappropriate within this context. 7. In conclusion, the combined height, design and materials of the proposed wall would be incongruous to the character and appearance of the street scene and therefore be contrary to Policy DC61 of the Havering Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document 2008 and the Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document 2011, which both provide design principles in order for development to respond to patterns of development and respect the scale, massing and height of the physical context. Other Matters 8. I acknowledge the submitted information of the level of crime in the area and the appellant’s need to create a safe and secure environment for their family. Be these as they may, this would not be sufficient against the harm that would arise out of the proposed wall. Specifically, that in respect of the character and appearance of the street scene. It is noted that the level of security could be increased to the appeal property in accordance with secured by design principles 1 40 Palm Road front fence, 15 Palm Road, side fence Appeal Decision: APP/B5480/W/19/3225345 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 3 by a more appropriately designed scheme that was sympathetic to the street scene. My findings therefore remain in this light. 9. The appellant considers that as no neighbour representations have been received, it can be deduced that the development would be appropriate and beneficial. This conclusion would be speculative however, and so I have not given significant weight to the lack of any neighbour responses. 10. I note that the Appellant has expressed dissatisfaction with the way in which the Council handled the planning application, with the Appellant stating that the Planning Officer’s opinions was a ‘subjective assessment based on opinions, preferences, values, feelings, and judgements; they are outside the realm of what is verifiable.’ I have seen no evidence to indicate that the Council has not failed to properly evaluate the application or consider the merits of the scheme, in which the Council had reasonable concerns about the impact of the proposed development which justified its decision. 11. Whilst I have not been formally asked to accept amended plans, it is mooted by the appellant that two other versions of a front boundary wall (labelled as Option 2 and Option 2a) could be proposed in accordance with plans attached to the appellant’s Appeal Statement. In general, the appeal process is not the appropriate place to evolve the scheme; and the scheme that is considered at appeal ought to be the same one that was considered by the Council. There is no evidence that these options formed part of the scheme that the Council made its decision on, or that these options have been subject to any form of consultation. In accordance with the ‘Wheatcroft Principles,2’ it would not be appropriate to consider these plans within my decision as the acceptance of such would deprive those who should have been consulted on the changed development or the opportunity of such consultation. Conclusion 12. For the reasons given above, the appeal is dismissed. J Somers INSPECTOR 2 Bernard Wheatcroft Ltd v SSE [JPL 1982 P37]