Installation of 2m high fence to side boundary

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 24 August 2026 by John D Allan BA(Hons) BTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 15 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6012808 92 Grimsdyke Road, Hatch End, Harrow, HA5 4PW • 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 Henry Holden against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Harrow. • The application Ref is PL/0860/26. • The development proposed is the installation of 2m high fence to side boundary. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. The banner heading above uses the description given by the Council on their decision notice and which was repeated by the appellant on the appeal form. This gives a clear and concise description of the proposal compared with that which was included on the application form. 3. During the course of the appeal, the revised National Planning Policy Framework 2026 (the Framework 2026) was published. Both parties were invited to comment about the relevance of the Framework 2026 to their case. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 5. Grimsdyke Road runs east to west and for the most part comprises suburban detached and semi-detached homes dating from the early to mid parts of the 20th century. Despite front gardens being relatively shallow, the streetscape is wide and spacious with grass verges to the kerb edges and pavements adjacent to the properties’ front boundaries, which are open plan or else demarcated by a combination of either low level hedgerow, flower borders or low solid walls or fences. The appeal property is part of a group of dwellings that appear to date from the second half of the last century located towards the west end of Grimsdyke Road. At this juncture the road turns sharply northwards before terminating as a cul-de-sac with Wessex Drive continuing in a southerly direction. 6. No 92 is one of four dwellings (Nos 92-98 even) in a staggered arrangement and which are aligned perpendicular to those along the majority length of Grimsdyke Appeal Decision 6012808 2 Road. These have similar open plan gardens or low boundary enclosures to their frontages which are reflective of the wider character and appearance of the surroundings. 7. The appeal property occupies a corner location and has a pocket of open green space to the side between the pavement and the dwelling’s two-storey side gable. The proposal is to enclose this area with a 2m high close-boarded fence which would project sideways from the front corner of the house and would then follow the site’s boundary at the back edge of the pavement before returning back to the rear corner of the existing enclosed garden along the irregular alignment of its common boundary with the open plan frontage of No 90 to the east. 8. I recognise that the land to the side of No 92 is unique to the property itself along Grimsdyke Road due to its unusual corner position. However, in my judgement the introduction of a tall and solid boundary enclosure at this point immediately adjacent to the public highway would appear jarring and visually intrusive, significantly out of keeping with the prevailing use of soft verdant and low enclosures to the roadside within the area. The vistas looking both east and west along Grimsdyke Road towards and beyond the appeal site would become noticeably constrained and atypically more enclosed. Contrary to the appellant’s view, I find that the proposal would markedly alter the established pattern of development and by so doing would fail to harmonise with the distinctive open character and appearance of the street scene. 9. I acknowledge the appellant’s desire to provide improved security, privacy and land management for their property and the justifiable aim of distinguishing between the public and private realm. However, I am not persuaded that the proposed means of enclosure would be the only way to achieve this. 10. The appellant has pointed to other solid boundary enclosures in the area, including to the side of properties on the opposing side of the road to No 92, which I observed for myself. The side boundary at 75 Grimsdyke Road is set behind a wedge-shaped grass verge which itself contributes to the open and verdant character of the street scene. The side boundary to 41 Wessex Drive is an undeniably prominent feature at the back edge of the pavement. However, it sits within a considerably different context where the vista along Wessex Drive looking both north and south is far more constrained to each side of the road compared with the open and spacious character of Grimsdyke Road. I accept the adjacent electricity pylon to the side of 73 Grimsdyke Road is an imposing structure that is surrounded by a close boarded fence but it too benefits from a spacious setting being set away from the roadside and behind a pocket of green open space. 11. Overall, through a combination of its height, position and form, the proposed fence would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. As such, there would be conflict with Policy GR1 of the Harrow Local Plan (2021-2041) which, amongst other things, seeks to secure a high standard of development that respects the character and context of the locality. For these same reasons there would be conflict with the Framework 2026’s decision-making policies for achieving well-designed places. Conclusion 12. For the reasons given above, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal Decision 6012808 3 John D Allan INSPECTOR