Construction of fence wall and metal gate

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 7 May 2025 by Rachel Hall BSc MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 22nd May 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000097 364 Shooters Hill Road, Blackheath, Greenwich SE18 4LS  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 Avtar Singh against the decision of the Council of the Royal Borough of Greenwich.  The application Ref is 24/2914/HD.  The development proposed is ‘construction of fence wall and metal gate’. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for construction of front boundary wall with x2 sets of metal gates and associated works at 364 Shooters Hill Road, Blackheath, Greenwich SE18 4LS in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 24/2914/HD, and the plans submitted with it. Preliminary Matters 2. The description in the heading above is taken from the original planning application form. However, prior to the Council’s determination of the application the description was changed to ‘construction of front boundary wall with x2 sets of metal gates and associated works. (Retrospective)’. The appeal is determined having regard to that revised description and that is the description used in the Decision as it more accurately describes the development. At the time of my site visit, I observed that the proposed boundary wall had been installed. As such, that element of the appeal scheme is treated as being retrospective. 3. The appeal site adjoins the site of two other current planning appeals at 366 and 368 Shooters Hill Road. These also relate to front boundary treatments that appear to have been designed to achieve the same scale and finish as this appeal scheme. These are the subject of separate decisions, but given the similarity in the nature of the proposals, I have had regard to cumulative effects of the three appeal schemes taken together. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area, with particular regard to the setting of the Woolwich Common Conservation Area. Reasons 5. In the vicinity of the appeal site, Shooters Hill Road (the Road) is a relatively wide, straight road, with cycle lanes in the carriageway and pavements to either side. Appeal Decision 6000097 2 This creates a sense of spaciousness. On the opposite side of the Road to the appeal site, within the Conservation Area, there is a predominance of low railings and walls, with grassed areas behind and buildings set well back from the Road. This adds to the sense of space in the vicinity of the appeal site. On the same side of the road as the appeal site, boundary treatments are varied in design. However, there is a predominance of brick walls, some with railings above. Some front boundaries contain hedges and others are solely hardstanding. The variety of boundary treatments adds interest in the street scene. 6. Although brick walls are the prevalent building material in the other boundaries described, the use of rendered walls does not appear alien in light of white render being a common material on houses here. This includes on the appeal building and those of the other adjacent appeal buildings, as well as the more modern looking apartment buildings on the opposite side of the Road. The boundary walls are higher than the front boundaries of most other houses along the Road, and are of a height that prevents views into and out of the appeal site. Nonetheless, the presence of substantial evergreen trees immediately behind the front boundary walls considerably limits visibility in and out of the appeal site in any event. Furthermore, the use of metal railings for the gates will ensure that some visibility would be maintained in the sizeable gaps between the boundary walls, even when gates are closed. 7. Therefore, the appeal scheme does not harm the character and appearance of the appeal site and surrounding area, having particular regard to the setting of the Conservation Area. Consequently, it accords with Policy D3 of the London Plan (March 2021) (London Plan), and Policy DH1 of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: Core Strategy with Detailed Policies (July 2014) (Local Plan). These generally seek to ensure proposals are designed to respond to the characteristics of the surrounding area. It would also satisfy Policy HC1 of the London Plan and Policies DH3 and DH(h) of the Local Plan. These generally seek to ensure proposals are sympathetic to heritage assets and their settings. Conclusion 8. There are no material considerations that indicate the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. For the reasons given above, I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed. 9. As the appeal scheme is largely retrospective, a plans condition is not necessary and the appeal is allowed on the basis of the submitted plans. Rachel Hall INSPECTOR