Appeal 3271923

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by an Appeal Planning Officer whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

In the interest of accuracy, the description of development used in the header above is based on that used on the Council’s decision notice.

I have identified the appellant in the header above as [name], as this is how it appears on the application form. I am minded however to highlight that the appeal form identifies the appellant as [name].

On my site visit, I observed that the fence and rendered wall erected up to the highway at the side of the appeal property along [name] differed from what has been proposed. Whilst the appeal has been considered on a part-retrospective basis, it is the scheme which was submitted as the planning application and appeal which I have considered.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site accommodates a strip of garden land associated with No. [site address] , a detached property situated at the corner of the junction of [address] and [name]. The side garden has recently been enclosed by a rendered wall and fence. The ground rises sharply from [address] along [name], which is a cul-de-sac characterised by low boundary walls and open front gardens.

Given its height, width and substantial length along the side of the garden, the proposed fence would appear incongruous and dominant in the context of the other open and landscaped front boundary treatments, and would fundamentally and adversely alter the sylvan and open character and appearance of [name] and [address]. Having had regard to the photographs of the site prior to the construction of the current fence, it is considered that the widening of the fence and the enclosure of the thin buffer of land next to the pavement, as well as the removal of the mature trees in this location, has visually eroded the streetscene.

Although the proposed new fence is indicated to be constructed with sympathetic materials that would match those of original fencing, and would be designed to progressively step down in line with land levels, its height would still be excessive and prominent in this corner location. It would be at odds with the open boundary treatments on [name] as well as [address].

I sympathise with the appellant in his desire for more privacy and security as a result of a burglary in 2016, but I am not persuaded that this should come at the expense of the character and appearance of the area or on the basis of the absence of any consideration of alternatives that this would be the only option. I have also had regard to the appellant’s comments regarding littering and the difficulty in maintaining the former strip of land, however, these concerns do not outweigh the permanent damage the proposal would have on the character and appearance of the streetscene.

The development would have an adverse visual impact on the street scene. Given this, I therefore find the proposal would harm the established character and appearance of the surrounding area. I therefore consider that the proposed development would conflict with Policies SP4 and DM10 of the Croydon Local Plan which together seek to ensure proposals are well-designed and respond to development pattern, layout, siting and local character. I have also had regard to the ‘Suburban Design Guide’ Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) which also seeks to ensure proposals respect local character.

Although quoted in the decision notice, Policies 7.4 and 7.6 of the London Plan (2011) are now superseded since the adoption of the new London Plan in March

Neither party has referred me to any revised London Plan policies in their appeal submissions, and I have therefore determined the appeal on the basis of the Local Plan alone.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and the Appeal Planning Officer’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.