None

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 8 May 2025 by Lewis Condé BSc (Hons), MSc, MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 12 May 2025 Appeal Ref: D/6000114 Proposal: Retention of driveway and front boundary wall and proposed metal grills and gate at 24 Jutsums Lane, Romford, RM7 9HH Application Ref: P1336.24. Decision – Planning Permission is Granted Preliminary Matters 1. The description of development above is from the Council’s decision notice as this more accurately describes the appeal scheme. 2. The development has commenced, albeit not been completed. Reasons Issue – Effect on the character and appearance of the area 3. The appeal property and adjoining semi-detached dwelling do not follow the predominant layout of the surrounding residential form, notably, due to occupying corner plots they are served by more sizeable front gardens. Additionally, the adjoining semi-detached dwelling, because of its boundary treatment, displays a far more enclosed frontage with a greater sense of formality than neighbouring properties. Although the boundary enclosure to the adjoining dwelling did not receive planning permission, it has been established for a considerable period, such that it is immune from planning enforcement. 4. Regardless of the lack of vegetation, the hardstanding installed at the appeal site does not appear inappropriate having regard to the surrounding context of front gardens, which are also mostly covered with hardstanding. 5. Due to the height and length of the boundary wall and proposed railings, the appeal scheme would not follow the largely open nature of front gardens that characterise much of the surrounding residential built form. Nonetheless, the development reflects and ties in well with the boundary treatment to the adjoining semi-detached property. Additionally, because of the appeal site’s corner plot, the property’s frontage would already have not been highly reflective of the existing pattern and rhythm of development in the streetscene. 6. Consequently, whilst the proposed boundary enclosure differs from the predominant nearby built form, I still find the appeal scheme to effectively integrate Appeal Decision 6000114 2 into the streetscene and not to cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. It therefore accords with the policies cited on the decision notice. Conditions 7. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawings: Block Plan & OS Map, Drawing No. 05 (Dated Oct 24); As Built Plan, Drawing No. 02 (Dated Oct 24); and Elevations Drawing No. 04 (Dated Oct 24). Reason: to provide clarity and certainty. 8. Given the development has already begun, it is not necessary to attach a standard time-limit condition for commencement of development. Conclusion 9. The proposal complies with the development plan as a whole and nothing indicates a decision should be made otherwise. Lewis Condé INSPECTOR