Replacement gates and boundary fencing

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 February 2025 by A Tucker BA (Hons) IHBC an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 4th March 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000055 31 The Terrace, Barnes, Richmond Upon Thames, London SW13 0NR  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 James Lloyd of JLA I Town & Country Planning Consultants against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames.  The application Ref is 24/1957/HOT.  The development is replacement gates and boundary fencing. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. The Council’s draft Local Plan is at an advanced stage and should therefore attract reasonable weight in the decision making process. 3. On 12 December 2024 the Government published its revised National Planning Policy Framework (Framework). Its content relative to the main issues of the appeal is largely unchanged. It has not therefore been necessary to give the parties opportunity to comment on the revisions. 4. The gates and fence have already been erected. I shall consider the appeal on this basis, and I have deleted ‘retention of’ from the description as this is not an act of development. Main Issues 5. The effect of the development upon the significance of the grade II listed building known as 31 The Terrace1, and whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Barnes Green Conservation Area (BGCA). Reasons 6. Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (LBCA) requires the decision maker to have special regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. Additionally, Section 72 of the LBCA requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area. 7. No. 31 The Terrace is a substantial 18th century dwelling with a formal symmetrical front façade, with an extra bay to one side. The floors are arranged such that the 1 List Entry Number: 1262068 Appeal Decision: 6000055 2 first floor appears to be the piano nobile, with shallower stories above and below. This gives the building a formal appearance, and no doubt its set back was intentional to elevate the status of the house above that of its neighbours. Thus, the front area, and the front enclosure are important components of its setting. Although the previous metal railings and gates were not historic, they had a traditional appearance and it is highly likely that the front would have always been demarcated in a similar way, allowing the fine façade to be seen from the road and river. These characteristics of the building’s setting contribute considerably to its significance. 8. The BGCA covers the historic core of Barnes as well as areas of its early residential expansion. Its river frontage is one of the longest and most distinctive townscapes in the BGCA, with a mix of many fine historic houses that are built to varying heights and with an uneven building line. Together these form a highly attractive composition that enjoys an open aspect across the river. The individual buildings that make up the river frontage, most of which are historic, their collective appearance and their interrelationship with the river, are components of this part of the BGCA that contribute considerably to its character and appearance. 9. The appeal relates to the front boundary of No. 31 The Terrace. The space between the dwelling and boundary is mainly laid to gravel and used for the parking of cars. Four masonry piers stand along the front boundary. Previously the area between the central piers was filled with black metal railings over a brick wall. The brick wall remains, and over it a solid section of metal fence has been fixed. Either side the previous gates have been replaced with solid metal gates. The replacement gates and fence have a wood effect and are designed to replicate timber frames with vertical timber boards. 10. Their solid appearance restricts views of the lower part of the building, which includes interesting details such as its door and porch. This represents a significant change to the way the asset is experienced, and the way it engages with the street and riverside. The solid form of the new boundary creates a disconnect between these elements. It gives the front of the building a more private character. This is at odds with most of the buildings along the riverside that are separated from the road only by modest walls or railings, providing an open and active aspect to the street. Dense hedges nearby can also restrict views of buildings; however, the natural appearance of a hedge better accords with the ‘rus in urbe’ character of the area than the solid boundary that has been erected. 11. Additionally, the replacement gates and fence extend rather inelegantly up to the height of the supporting piers. This has given the front boundary a bland and continuous form, which differs significantly from the previous arrangement whereby the gates and fence were lower than the piers. Their scale was further reduced by the position of the top rail. This arrangement gave the previous front boundary a pleasant structural rhythm, where the visual lightness of the gates and railings offered an appropriate contrast to the solid form of the piers and related well to the metalwork and masonry on the house. 12. The gates and fence appear to be good quality. The curved top of the gates adds some visual interest, and from a distance they have the appearance of traditional timber fittings. However, these factors have little bearing on their acceptability within this context, of which the primary issue is their solid appearance. Appeal Decision: 6000055 3 13. It is suggested that the test to be applied is whether the development causes harm, not how it compares with what was there before2. It is highly likely that the front boundary has always been defined by a visually light arrangement of railings that maintained a strong connection between the building and the street and river frontage, and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. The change between this historic arrangement and the current arrangement marks a significant change to the way the asset is experienced and is highly relevant to my assessment of the case. As is the change that has occurred across a broad area of the streetscene and this part of the BGCA. 14. The level of harm to the setting of the listed building is greater than the minimal or marginal degree of harm suggested previously by the Council. The change has had a notable adverse impact on a key aspect of the setting that has caused considerable harm to the building’s significance. The level of harm to the BGCA is less, given that it only relates to a small part of the BGCA, but nevertheless the new boundary does appear as something of an oddity in a streetscene that is otherwise characterised by more open frontages, and this change has occurred to a townscape that is recognised as one of the longest and most distinctive within the BGCA. 15. In terms of the Framework, the harm arising from the replacement boundary is less than substantial, but nevertheless is of considerable importance and weight. Paragraph 215 of the Framework establishes that any harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. 16. The proposal is largely driven by the desire to improve the level of security and privacy of the dwelling, mindful of the fact that its occupant is a high profile celebrity. It is suggested that a solid front boundary deters people from gathering on the public highway as views towards the dwelling are restricted, and that this is a change that benefits the living conditions of neighbours and preserves highway safety. There is no evidence before me to back up this claim, or to allow me to understand the severity of the problem. The weight I give to this public benefit is therefore limited. 17. Paragraph 212 of the Framework states that great weight should be given to the conservation of a heritage asset. The public benefit identified is not sufficient to outweigh the harm that arises from the development. 18. In summary, the development has failed to meet the requirements of the LBCA as it harms the special interest of the listed building and fails to preserve the character or appearance of the BGCA. The development also fails to accord with Policies LP1 and LP3 of the Local Plan 2018 and Emerging Policies 28 and 29 of the Draft Richmond Local Plan 2023, which together seek to ensure that development proposals are of a high architectural and urban design quality that is compatible with local character and conserves the historic environment. Other Matters 19. The harm would be lessened if permission was granted for a temporary period. However, there is nothing before me to suggest that the situation would be different for the occupant at the end of a temporary period, or that an alternative solution could be developed that would satisfy the same aim. With reference to the 2 With reference to an appeal decision, Ref: APP/Y3615/A/05/1177527 Appeal Decision: 6000055 4 Planning Practice Guidance3, the development is not temporary in nature, and it is not necessary to test its impact on a temporary basis. Therefore, I am not satisfied that allowing the appeal on a temporary basis would be appropriate. 20. The occupant of the dwelling refers to the need to take measures to protect themselves and their family, given that they have suffered several incursions of privacy as well as direct threats to safety and security. The development allows for increased privacy for the occupants of the house when moving between the front door and cars parked in the forecourt. It is suggested that the Council has granted permission for similar boundary treatments where the privacy and security of high profile owners is considered to be of significant weight in the planning balance. However, no details of these cases are before me, so they cannot weigh in favour of the appeal. 21. Dismissing the appeal has the potential to interfere with the occupier’s and their family’s rights to a private and family life and home, under Article 1 of the First Protocol and Article 8 as set out under the Human Rights Act 1998. However, these are qualified rights; interference with them in this instance would accord with the law and be in pursuance of a well-established and legitimate aim: the conservation of heritage assets. 22. I accept that the development has improved the privacy of the property as it has restricted the ability to view the front garden and parking area from the pavement and road. However, the same level of security could be achieved by a similar set of well built gates and railings that are not solid. It is not clear how secure the previous gates were. Replacements on this basis could go a long way towards meeting the occupant’s needs and concerns and there is nothing to explain the frequency of incursions of privacy that have occurred at the property, or their nature. 23. Taking these matters together, and weighing them against the harmful impact of the development on the special interest of the listed building and character and appearance of the BGCA, I find that dismissing the appeal would not unacceptably interfere with the occupiers right to a private and family life and home. It is proportionate in the circumstances to dismiss the appeal. Conclusion 24. For the reasons above, the appeal should be dismissed. A Tucker INSPECTOR 3 Paragraph: 014 Reference ID: 21a-014-20140306