Installation of a replacement front boundary wall, palisade fence and two palisade pedestrian gates and re-paving of the house's front garden

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 12 August 2026 by K Lancaster BA (hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 22 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6010335 38 Abinger Road, Chiswick W4 1EX • 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 Morris against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Hounslow. • The application Ref is P/2026/0525. • The development proposed is the installation of a replacement front boundary wall, palisade fence and two palisade pedestrian gates and re-paving of the house's front garden. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. A new National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published on 17 August 2026. As this could affect the issues and matters in this case, the Council and the appellant were invited to make further comments. My decision reflects the latest version of the Framework, and the responses received on it. Main Issue 3. The main issues are the effect of the proposed development: • on the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Bedford Park Conservation Area; and • surface water flood risk. Reasons 4. The appeal site, 38 Abinger Road, comprises a semi-detached house with a mansard roof, front and rear dormers, a front bay window with a balcony above, and rear projections. It has been extended with a single-storey side and rear infill extension. The house is built of red brick with a clay tiled roof and white-painted timber detailing. 5. The front boundary treatment currently consists of a low red brick wall with matching brick piers and brown timber close-board fencing between, with a hedgerow located behind the fence and a brown-painted timber picket gate providing pedestrian access. 6. The appeal site lies within the Bedford Park Conservation Area (BPCA). The significance of the BPCA is derived from its cohesive Victorian townscape, Appeal Decision 6010335 2 distinctive Queen Anne Revival architecture, mature street planting, generous, landscaped setting, consistent building lines and varied yet carefully considered boundary treatments, which together create a verdant and distinctive suburban character. Its significance is derived not only from its individual buildings, many of which are designated heritage assets, but also from the collective quality of the street scene and the contribution made by front gardens, boundary enclosures and the relationship between neighbouring properties. 7. In determining this appeal, I have had special regard to the duty under section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act), which requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. 8. The proposal seeks planning permission for the removal of the existing front boundary wall, close-boarded fence, pedestrian gate and front hedgerow, and their replacement with a 0.48m high red brick wall, a 1.32m high, white-painted timber palisade fence with 1.52m high piers and two 1.26m high, white-painted palisade pedestrian gates. 9. The Character, Sustainability and Design Codes Supplementary Planning Document (the SPD) advises that replacement boundary treatments should respond to local character, whilst the Bedford Park Conservation Area Appraisal identifies the loss of traditional boundaries and the introduction of inappropriate fencing as pressures on the area's significance. It also discourages the indiscriminate use of the Bedford Park palisade style where there is no evidence that it existed historically. 10. Whilst the BPCA exhibits common architectural characteristics, variety in boundary treatments contributes significantly to its character and appearance. Walls, fences, gates, piers and hedging add visual interest and reflect the area's gradual evolution, with the Conservation Area Appraisal recognising variety rather than uniformity as a defining characteristic. 11. The proposal would replace the existing boundary treatment with palisade fencing and gates. Although examples of palisade fencing exist elsewhere within the BPCA, the existing enclosure reflects that of neighbouring properties and contributes positively to the variety of boundary treatments experiences in this part of Abinger Road. I acknowledge that the existing fencing is not original. However, there is no persuasive evidence that palisade fencing formed part of the property's historic boundary treatment. The presence of such fencing elsewhere in the BPCA, including Abinger Road, does not, in itself, demonstrate that it would be appropriate in this location. Rather, the significance of the BPCA is derived in part from the varied range of boundary treatments and their relationship to the architectural character of individual buildings and groups of buildings. 12. Consequently, the proposal would fail to respond appropriately to the character of the appeal property and its immediate context. Whilst palisade fencing is not uncommon elsewhere within the BPCA, there is no evidence that it formed part of the historic enclosure of this property. The proposed boundary treatment would therefore appear at odds with the character of the host dwelling and would disrupt the complementary relationship between the appeal property and the adjoining semi-detached house. In doing so, it would diminish the varied yet coherent townscape character that contributes to the significance of the BPCA. Appeal Decision 6010335 3 13. The proposal would also involve the replacement of a substantial proportion of the existing front garden with hardstanding, leaving only a limited area for planting. Front gardens and their landscaping are an important component of the verdant suburban character identified in the BPCA Appraisal. The reduction in soft landscaping would therefore erode this characteristic and increase the urbanising influence of parked vehicles and hard surfacing within the street scene, compounding the identified harm to the significance of the BPCA. 14. Whilst the appellant suggests that additional landscaping could be secured by condition, the submitted details do not demonstrate that such planting would adequately mitigate the identified harm. In any event, it would not be appropriate to defer a matter fundamental to the acceptability of the proposal. I have therefore assessed the scheme on the basis of the submitted plans. 15. For these reasons, I find that the proposal would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the BPCA. Rather, it would cause harm to its significance through the introduction of an inappropriate boundary treatment and the erosion of the verdant character provided by the front garden. Accordingly, the proposal would conflict with Policies HC1, SC7, CC1, CC2 and CC4, the objectives of the SPD, and the statutory duty under Section 72(1) of the Act. 16. In accordance with the Framework, in finding harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, the degree of harm should be identified. In this case, the proposed development would not cause substantial harm, but instead, due to its limited scale, result in a modest level of harm to the significance of the BPCA. Nevertheless, Policy HE6(3) of the framework is clear that any harm to a designated heritage asset is a matter of considerable importance and weight. Under such circumstances, Policy HE6(4) of the Framework, advises that harm should be weighed against any public benefits arising from the proposal. 17. No public benefits have been advanced in favour of the appeal. However, it appears to me that the proposal amounts to only private benefit for the appellant and their family, through the development of the property. As such, identified harm is not outweighed by any public benefits. Therefore, the proposed development would conflict with the Framework insofar as it seeks to ensure that heritage assets are conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance. Surface Water Flood Risk 18. The proposal would involve the installation of hardstanding in the form of paving slabs to the majority of the front garden, bordered by small sections of planting. The appeal is not supported by any details to explain how the site will be drained to avoid surface water run-off onto the adjacent highway. However, in the event that I am minded to allow the appeal, I am satisfied that the approval, implementation and maintenance of an appropriate scheme of surface water drainage could be secured by a suitable planning condition. 19. For these reasons, I conclude that subject to the imposition of a suitably worded planning condition, the proposal would not increase surface water flood risk. Thus, it would comply with Policies S13 of the London Plan and Policy EQ3 of the HLP, which seek amongst other things to minimise flood risk by requiring development to manage surface water run-off through sustainable drainage measures, and ensure that development does not increase flood risk on-site or elsewhere. Appeal Decision 6010335 4 Planning Balance and Conclusion 20. Policy S3 of the Framework states that decisions on development proposals should apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development. In this case, the development would be located within a settlement, where Framework Policy S4 indicates that development should be approved, unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects, when assessed against the Framework’s national decision-making policies. 21. The proposal would replace an existing front boundary fence that is in a poor state of repair, resulting in a more secure means of enclosure. However, this benefit is largely private and limited in nature. Consequently, it is of very limited weight in the planning balance. 22. The development would result in harm to the BPCA. This harm is of considerable importance and weight, and it is not outweighed by public benefits. As a result, the development would conflict with the Framework’s policies which seek to preserve and enhance the historic environment. 23. Consequently, I find that the benefits of granting planning permission would be substantially outweighed by adverse effects, when assessed against the national decision-making policies of the Framework. 24. In conclusion, the proposed development would conflict with the development plan taken as a whole. There are no material considerations of sufficient weight which indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. K Lancaster INSPECTOR