Retrospective planning permission for the erection of a front boundary wall and associated railings and gates
📊
See the success rate & inspector analytics
Free to view — just create an account, no payment needed.
Sign Up FreeTechnical Issues Heatmap
Character & Appearance
Highways & Transport
Heritage & Conservation
Inspector’s Reasoning
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 2 July 2026
by Gary Deane BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 14 July 2026
Appeal Ref: 6010176
56 Brookside, Hornchurch, Havering RM11 2RL
• 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 V Anthohi against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of
Havering.
• The application reference is P0314.26.
• The development is retrospective planning permission for the erection of a front boundary wall and
associated railings and gates.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Procedural matters
2. An application for costs has been made by the appellant against the Council. This
application is the subject of a separate decision.
3. The boundary treatment that is the subject of this appeal has been erected. It
appears to have been constructed broadly in accordance with the submitted plans.
Main issues
4. The main issues are the effect of the development on the character and
appearance of the local area and on highway safety, particularly for pedestrians.
Reasons
Character and appearance
5. Brookside is a predominantly residential street characterised by individually
designed detached houses within generous plots. While there is some variation in
the appearance of the front boundaries of properties, that part of the road to which
No 56 belongs is one of relatively modest enclosure, with low brick boundary walls,
planting or open driveways that allow views from the highway into front gardens.
The resulting visual permeability contributes positively to the spacious and verdant
character of the local street scene of which the appeal dwelling forms part.
6. The site does not fall within a conservation area nor is No 56 a listed building. It
does, however, fall within the Emerson Park Policy Area (EPPA), wherein the
Council’s policies and guidance aim to conserve the spacious and attractive
suburban character of the area.
Appeal Decision 6010176
2
7. The development comprises a series of piers that are connected by a low-level wall
with metal railings above together with a sliding entrance gate. This boundary
treatment extends across the highway frontage of the site and the side boundaries
to form an enclosed courtyard at the front of the dwelling. The boundary walls and
piers are rendered to match the appeal dwelling.
8. Although the railings provide a degree of visual permeability, the substantial wall
beneath them, together with the piers, means that the overall impression remains
one of a prominent and visually assertive enclosure. Consequently, the frontage of
No 56 appears far more substantial, formal and enclosed than the more low-key
boundary features that are characteristic of the streetscape. On that basis, the
development is incongruous and obtrusive addition to the local area.
9. I have carefully considered the appellant's photographs of the existing boundary
treatments at 24, 25, 26 and 27 Brookside, all of which I saw during my site visit.
At Nos 25 and 27, the proportion of solid wall to open railing appears lower and
more open than at No 56. Nos 24 and 26 present more enclosed and less
permeable frontages that are nonetheless atypical of the prevailing pattern of
boundary treatments along Brookside. I do not consider a small number of
examples further along the road to be representative of the established character of
that part of Brookside to which the site belongs. None of these examples,
individually or collectively, persuades me that the appeal scheme reflects the
prevailing character of the street.
10. The appellant submits that the render and mouldings replicate those that have
been approved for the dwelling, and that it is inconsistent for the Council to object
to the same materials. I, too, find the materials acceptable. The issue is, however,
the overall scale, built form and enclosure created by the boundary treatment.
11. While the Council refers to several appeal decisions concerning boundary
treatments within the EPPA, it has provided few background details of the
circumstances of those cases. Consequently, I am unable to determine whether
they are directly comparable to the development before me. In any event, I have
assessed the appeal scheme on its own merits.
12. On the first main issue, I conclude that the development causes significant harm to
the character and appearance of the local area. It is therefore contrary to Policies 7
and 26 of the Havering Local Plan 2016–2031 (LP) and the Council’s Residential
Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). This policy
and guidance promote high quality design and seek to ensure that development
respects, reinforces and complements the prevailing character of the local street
scene. There is also a conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (the
Framework), which states that development should be sympathetic to local
character and add to the overall quality of the area.
Highway safety
13. The second reason for refusal states that the existing boundary treatment fails to
provide adequate visibility for vehicles leaving the site and thereby creates an
unsafe environment for pedestrians and other road users. The submitted evidence
offers few clues as to how this conclusion was reached.
14. Firstly, there is no visibility assessment, evidence from the Highway Authority or
other technical information before me to support the Council’s stance. Secondly,
Appeal Decision 6010176
3
the officer’s report notes that insufficient information had been provided to
determine whether views of pedestrian and other vehicles would be inhibited by the
boundary treatment. Thirdly, the safety concerns of the Council were not based on
a site inspection since the officer’s report acknowledges that an ‘in person’ visit was
not carried out prior to the decision to refuse planning permission.
15. From my own observations, the piers on either side of the entrance would restrict
the visibility of oncoming pedestrians and other road users for drivers leaving the
site to some extent. However, there would still be reasonable visibility of oncoming
footway and road users for vehicles egressing the site. I saw that the sliding gate
operates wholly within the property and does not encroach onto the footway. No
change is sought to the position of the vehicle access, and I have no reason to
conclude that the development would significantly increase its use. I have noted
the appellant's submission that the improved off-street parking arrangements
represent a highway betterment, but that does not address the specific issue before
me, which concerns visibility at the point of egress rather than parking provision.
16. On the second main issue, I conclude that the development does not result in
unacceptable harm to highway safety. Accordingly, I find no conflict with Policy T4
of The London Plan (TLP) or LP Policies 7 and 23 insofar as they seek to ensure
safe access arrangements. This favourable finding does not outweigh the
significant harm that I have identified in relation to the first main issue.
Other matters
17. The appellant is critical of the Council's handling and consideration of the
application, notably in relation to the absence of an in-person site visit; the
Council's assertion that the boundary treatment is a safety hazard for pedestrians
and road users; and the reference in the officer's report to an outbuilding, which
forms no part of the development. While I have taken these concerns into account,
my assessment follows a detailed inspection of the site and its surroundings and
takes into account all the submitted evidence.
18. The appellant places some reliance on TLP Policies D1, D4 and T6 and LP Policy
24, to which I have had regard. Nevertheless, I find that the development is
contrary to the policies and guidance cited by the Council in the reasons for refusal,
which are directly concerned with safeguarding the character and appearance of
the street scene and the local area.
Conclusion
19. The development conflicts with the development plan, when read as a
whole. There are no material considerations, including those of the Framework,
which indicate that the decision should be taken otherwise than in accordance with
the development plan. For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all
other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.
Gary Deane
INSPECTOR
£
Costs decision section
Costs Decision
Site visit made on 2 July 2026
by Gary Deane BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 14 July 2026
Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: 6010176
56 Brookside, Hornchurch, Havering RM11 2RL
• The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), sections 78,
322 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5).
• The application is made by Mr V Anthohi for a full award of costs against the Council of the London
Borough of Havering.
• The appeal was against the refusal of retrospective planning permission for the erection of a front
boundary wall and associated railings and gates.
Decision
1. The application for an award of costs is partly allowed in the terms set out below.
Reasons
2. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that, irrespective of the outcome of
the appeal, costs may only be awarded where a party has behaved unreasonably
and thereby caused another party to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the
appeal process. Unreasonable behaviour can be either substantive (relating to the
merits of the appeal) or procedural (relating to the process) in nature.
3. The costs application is advanced on three substantive grounds. These concern
the Council's evidence in relation to highway safety, its assessment of the effect of
the development on the character and appearance of the area, and its treatment of
the materials used. I consider each of these matters in turn.
Ground 1 – Highway Safety
4. The second reason for refusal states that the boundary treatment "has created an
unsafe environment for pedestrians and other vehicles." However, the officer's
report records that "it is considered insufficient information has been provided so as
to determine whether the boundary treatment would inhibit drivers from being able
to view pedestrians and other vehicles when entering/exiting the site."
5. These positions are difficult to reconcile. On one hand, the officer's report indicates
that the Council was unable to determine, on the information before it, whether the
development would result in the harm alleged in the reason for refusal. On the
other, the decision notice expresses a definitive conclusion that such harm exists.
6. In response to the application for an award of costs, the Council expands upon its
highway safety concerns by referring to the position, height and proximity of the
piers to the footway. Based on the site photographs provided at that time, the
Council states that a realistic assessment of visibility could be undertaken. That
finding does not, however, tally with the conclusion reached in the officer’s report
Costs Decision 6010176
2
that there was insufficient information to determine whether the boundary treatment
would inhibit visibility. It also does not explain how the Council was nevertheless
able to reach a definitive conclusion that the development had created an unsafe
environment.
7. It was open to the Council to request further information from the applicant to
address the uncertainty identified in the officer’s report. There is no evidence that
such a request was made. The retrospective nature of the application did not
remove the need for the Council to reach a reasoned conclusion supported by
adequate evidence.
8. I therefore find that the Council failed to substantiate the highway safety reason for
refusal. This amounts to unreasonable behaviour of the type identified in the PPG
and caused the applicant to incur unnecessary expense in addressing that issue
through the appeal process.
Ground 2 – Character and appearance
9. I do not accept that the absence of a site visit, in itself, amounts to unreasonable
behaviour. It seems to me that an assessment of visual character may reasonably
be undertaken using photographs, aerial imagery, street-level imagery and an
officer's knowledge of the area. On that basis, a site visit is not always necessary
in every instance.
10. The officer's report sets out the reasoning underlying the Council's assessment of
the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the local area. Whilst
I have reached my own conclusions on that issue, having regard to the evidence
and my site visit, they are consistent with the Council's overall planning judgement.
The matters raised by the applicant as to specific aspects of the officer's reasoning
do not, of themselves, demonstrate that the Council acted unreasonably or failed to
substantiate its case in the manner envisaged by the PPG.
11. The applicant also refers to the mention of a "very large" outbuilding in the officer’s
report which did not form part of the application. On the evidence before me, this
appears to have been a drafting error. While unfortunate, there is nothing to
indicate that this mistake materially influenced the Council's assessment of the
development or caused the applicant to incur unnecessary or wasted expense. I
therefore find that the Council has not behaved unreasonably in this respect.
Ground 3 – Materials
12. The first reason for refusal is expressed in terms of "excessive height and scale"
and inconsistency with the "established low rise form of development". It does not
refer to the materials or finish of the boundary treatment.
13. I therefore do not accept that the refusal can properly be read as extending to the
choice of materials. Whatever view may be taken of the Council's earlier decision
relating to the dwelling itself, that is not a matter arising from the refusal reason in
this appeal. I find no unreasonable behaviour established under this ground.
Conclusion
14. Overall, I am satisfied that the Council's failure to substantiate the highway safety
reason for refusal amounted to unreasonable behaviour which directly caused the
Costs Decision 6010176
3
appellant to incur unnecessary expense in addressing that issue through the
appeal process. A partial award of costs is therefore justified.
Costs Order
15. In exercise of the powers under section 250(5) of the Local Government Act 1972
and Schedule 6 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended, and all
other enabling powers in that behalf, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Council of
the London Borough of Havering shall pay to Mr V Anthohi the costs of the appeal
proceedings, limited to those costs incurred in relation to the highway safety reason
for refusal; such costs to be assessed in the Senior Courts Costs Office if not
agreed.
16. The applicant is now invited to submit to the Council of the London Borough of
Havering to whom a copy of this decision has been sent, details of those costs with
a view to reaching agreement as to the amount.
Gary Deane
INSPECTOR
Expert Representation
Don't leave your appeal to chance.
Inspectors are inconsistent. We build a technical defense using precedents from our 182,000+ case archive.
No win, no fee Householder representation — you only pay if you win.