New front gate

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 17 February 2026 by Andrew Fuller BSc (Hons), Dip TP, MA, RTPI, IHBC an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 6th March 2026 Appeal Ref: 6002595 68 Langley Hill, Kings Langley, Hertfordshire WD4 9HE • 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 Miss Romula Lewin against the decision of Dacorum Borough Council. • The application Ref is 25/02553/FHA. • The development proposed is new front gate. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Reasons 3. The appeal site lies within the historic core of Langley Hill which comprises a mix of housing set back either side of the street behind grass verges. Property boundaries are generally formed by hedging or low walling punctuated by driveways which are mostly open and without gates. 4. 68 Langley Hill is typical of the area’s established character, with a mature hedge marking the front boundary of the property. An open driveway crossing extends over a grass verge to the front forecourt and provides views towards the house as commonly experienced with other properties. 5. The proposal is for a pair of tall, close board, timber gates. Whilst set back to the rear of the hedging line, these gates would be highly visible in views from both directions along Langley Hill. The solid nature of the gates would be harmful to the otherwise open character of the local area, and the height would contribute to them being a dominant and incongruous feature in the street scene. Whilst evergreen hedging flanks the driveway, there is no guarantee that this will survive in perpetuity as partial screening. 6. There are a limited number of nearby houses within the surrounding area that have front boundary gates. However, where these exist, they are mostly low and of an open design, comprising timber bars or metal railing components, thereby reducing their solidity and sense of enclosure. On site, I noted taller gates at 65 Langley Hill, near to the site. However, these are substantially set back from the road and include an open railed top section that reduces their screening. In any Appeal Decision 6002595 2 case, those other examples do not form a prominent feature of the surrounding area, and have not led me to an alternative conclusion on this main issue. 7. Overall, I conclude that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area. As such it conflicts with Policy CS11 and CS12 of the Dacorum Borough Council Core Strategy (2013) which requires, amongst other matters, for development to preserve attractive streetscapes. Other Matters 8. The site lies within the Kings Langley Conservation Area (the CA). Heritage matters do not form part of the Council’s reason for refusing the proposed development. Nonetheless, in line with section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act), I have paid special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA. 9. The special interest and significance of the CA is largely derived from historic connections with the site of the priory, former Royal Palace and Deer Park. It contains a number of high quality historic buildings of architectural value of which this site does not significantly contribute to. Bearing in mind the position, nature and extent of the proposal, I consider that they would have a neutral effect on, and would therefore preserve, the character and appearance of the CA as a whole. As such, the proposal would not harm the significance of the designated heritage asset. Nevertheless, the lack of harm in this respect does not weigh for or against the appeal and does not alter my conclusion on the main issue. 10. The applicant has argued that the gate would provide practical benefits in terms of security and boundary definition. Whilst this is acknowledged, this matter does not outweigh the harm identified above. Conclusion 11. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and that there are no material considerations that indicate that the development should be determined other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. Andrew Fuller INSPECTOR