Installation of an electric single sliding metal gate to driveway, metal railings to top of the existing front boundary wall and one small metal gate for pedestrian only

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 June 2026 by A Morrison MTCP MRTPI Decision by Martin Seaton BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 12 August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6008186 2 Crossways, Romford RM2 6AA • 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 Ajit Saha against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Havering. • The application Ref is P1407.25. • The development proposed is installation of an electric single sliding metal gate to driveway, metal railings to top of the existing front boundary wall and one small metal gate for pedestrian only. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the streetscene, including whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Gidea Park Conservation Area (the CA). Reasons for the Recommendation 4. The appeal site comprises a detached two-storey dwelling set behind a low front boundary wall within a mature, attractive residential street scene in the southern part of the CA. Extending across much of its frontage, with openings on either side providing unrestricted access to a garden and driveway, the existing boundary wall represents one of the more substantial built boundary treatments to the front of houses within this part of Crossways. Nevertheless, its restrained height and partial extent are generally consistent with the subtle, open appearance of frontage enclosures along the road. 5. Prominently positioned as the first dwelling on its side of the street, the appeal property is located immediately to the rear of commercial premises fronting Main Road. Adjacent, and clearly associated with these commercial uses, are several contrastingly tall boundary treatments. Notwithstanding these developments, I observed during my site visit that the appeal property is experienced principally within its context as part of a group of dwellings fronting onto the northern end of Crossways. Appeal Decision 6008186 2 6. The statutory duty set out in Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area. 7. The Gidea Park Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan (July 2025) describes the special interest of the CA as being principally drawn from its conception as an early 20th-century garden suburb and its diverse collection of architecturally distinctive and characterful dwellings. Insofar as relates to the appeal, I find that the significance of the CA is reflected in the traditionally modest scale and appearance of boundary treatments, many of which remain intact. The residential streetscene within which the appeal property is situated provides a strong illustration of this characteristic. Whilst the appeal property is not one of the area's original ‘exhibition’ houses and has been significantly extended, its existing appearance, including the front boundary wall, is broadly in keeping with this established pattern and therefore makes a neutral contribution to the significance of the CA. 8. The proposed driveway and pedestrian gates, together with the wall-top railings would form a highly visible enclosure across the full width of the site’s frontage. Despite the claimed permeable and tidy design, the span, height and close spacing of the metal bars would combine to create essentially a visually obtrusive and fully enclosed appearance that would contrast sharply with the prevailing modest, open presence of surrounding boundary treatments. Consequently, the proposal would disrupt the positive rhythm of the streetscene and appear as a harmfully incongruous feature within its historic context, notwithstanding the property's positioning towards the end of the road within a mix of detached and semi- detached dwellings. 9. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) advises that when considering a development’s impact on the significance of designated heritage assets, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. Given its limited effect in relation to the CA as a whole, the harm arising from the proposal would be at the lower end of ‘less than substantial’, but, nevertheless, of considerable importance and weight. Paragraph 215 of the Framework requires that less than substantial harm should be weighed against the public benefits of a development. 10. The appellant contends that, with reference to the property’s location close to Main Road, the proposal would improve safety and security for its occupants. However, I have been provided with no persuasive evidence of existing security concerns or events, or that this would be the only feasible or realistic means of addressing any issues arising, and am mindful of the consistently open nature of driveway frontages within this part of Crossways. In any event, any such benefits would be largely limited to the private interests of the appellant. Thus, this matter does not amount to public benefits of sufficient weight to outweigh the identified harm to the CA. 11. For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposal would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the streetscene and would fail to preserve the character or appearance of the CA. It would therefore fail to satisfy the requirements of the Act and conflict with Policy D4 of the London Plan 2021 and Policies 26 and 28 of the Havering Local Plan 2016 – 2031. Amongst other things, these policies promote high quality design by supporting development that respects Appeal Decision 6008186 3 and complements the distinctive qualities, identity, character and features of the site and local area, respects and reinforces the local streetscene, and preserves, enhances or better reveals the character and appearance of conservation areas and their significance. The proposal would also be contrary to the Council’s Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document 2011, which guides that boundary treatments should reinforce the prevailing character of the streetscape. 12. The Council’s decision notice also refers to Policy D1 of the London Plan, however this appears to be of little if any relevance to the proposed gates and railings. Other Matters 13. During my visit I looked at examples of other front boundary treatments in the locality, including those highlighted by the appellant. Whilst the enclosures cited within Links and Castellan Avenues share some similarities to the proposal, they are all located outside the CA and therefore do not occupy the same sensitive visual and historic context as the appeal site. Equally, the front boundary treatment at 119 Main Road is not directly comparable, owing to its differing design, including close-boarded fencing, and its location within a wider, mixed-use streetscene. Accordingly, these examples do not alter my conclusions on the main issue. 14. I acknowledge the appellant’s willingness to amend the scheme. However, my recommendation must be based on the scheme as submitted, as this is the proposal that formed the application and was subject to public consultation. Conclusion and Recommendation 15. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. A Morrison APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 16. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. Martin Seaton INSPECTOR