Front boundary wall

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 April 2025 by M Aqbal BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 02 June 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000054 260 Cross Road, Mawneys, Romford, Havering RM7 8HS • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Cem Taskan against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Havering. • The application Ref is P1213.24. • The development proposed is for erection of front boundary wall. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for erection of front boundary wall at 260 Cross Road, Mawneys, Romford, Havering RM7 8HS, in accordance with the terms of the application Ref P1213.24 and subject to the following condition. 1) This permission relates to the following approved plans and drawings: Site Location and Block Plan: Drawing number - 19/670/001 and Existing Plans and Elevations: Drawing number - 19/670/003. Preliminary Matters 2. Because ‘retrospective’ is not an act of development, I have removed this term from my formal Decision. 3. I observed that a new front boundary wall has been undertaken and its design and form reflect the submitted drawings. I have determined the appeal on the basis of the submitted drawings and my observations. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the new front boundary wall on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 5. The appeal scheme seeks to retain a new front boundary wall at 260 Cross Road (‘the appeal site’). The appeal site comprises a two storey semi-detached dwellinghouse, which is set back from the highway behind a sizeable frontage. Within the wider street scene, properties are generally characterised by low front boundary walls or open frontages. Even so, there are taller boundary treatments within the vicinity of the appeal site. For example, the adjoining semi-detached property features a solid front boundary timber fence which is about 1.5m in height. 6. A dwelling to the south of the appeal site, 264 Cross Road incorporates a front boundary treatment comprising a 1m high brick wall with pillars up to about 1.8m. Appeal Decision 6000054 2 Whilst the Council advises that its records show that planning permission was never sought for these boundary treatments, there is nothing to suggest that the Council is pursuing enforcement action in respect of these. As such, these also inform the character and appearance of the area. 7. The new front boundary wall incorporates a low-level brick wall with pillars interspersed by metal railings painted black. The height of the low-level brick wall at about 0.8m is comparable to others within the street scene. With the railings and pillars, the overall height of the boundary wall just exceeds 1.8m. Although this would be taller than others in the wider area, in the context of the boundary treatments nearby, its height is not markedly excessive. 8. A gate is also incorporated within the new front boundary wall. This occupies about a third of the frontage and therefore is not disproportionate or excessive. Moreover, the gate and railings are of a simple design and the gaps in the bars associated with these provide a considerable degree of permeability and complement the simple form of the low-wall and pillars. Consequently, because of its overall design, the boundary wall does not appear visually dominant. Due to this and the other nearby boundary treatments, the new front boundary wall assimilates into the street scene. 9. For the above reasons, the new front boundary wall does not harm the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, I find no conflict with policies 26 and 27 of the Havering Local Plan. Amongst other things, these policies require that proposals be of high quality design. Conditions 10. In imposing conditions, I have had regard to the National Planning Policy Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance. Because the development has already commenced it is not necessary to specify the standard implementation condition. However, I have specified a condition relating to the approved plans and drawings in the interests of certainty. Conclusion 11. For the above reasons, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. M Aqbal INSPECTOR