Appeal 3275836

The appeal is dismissed.

It is considered that the main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, in particular the streetscene.

The appeal property is a dwelling which is located on a corner plot. The property’s front elevation faces towards a segregated pedestrian/cycle route. Abutting this route is a landscaped strip of land associated with the property. To the rear of this landscaped strip is a close boarded wooden fence which encloses the property’s rear garden. The proposed development includes the relocation of the fence so it, rather than the landscaped strip, would about the footway/cycleway route.

The surrounding residential development, within which the property is located, has a consistent approach to its urban design, especially its layout, siting of dwellings and boundary treatments. Generally, whether facing roads or segregated routes dwellings are set back from footways to the rear of small landscaped front gardens. For corner plots a similar approach to the appeal property has been adopted to the boundary treatments whereby fences are sited to the rear of landscaped strips. Mainly fronting segregated routes, these landscaped strips make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the surrounding area, especially the streetscene.

The loss of the landscaped strip and the proposed fence’s siting abutting the segregated route would not reflect the layout and urban design principles applied to the boundary treatments of similarly sited corner dwellings within the surrounding area. For this reason alone, the siting of the proposed fence would compromise the urban design principles applied to the layout of the surrounding residential development and, as such, it would not represent a high quality form of development.

Further, the current fence is sited so as to align with the front elevations of the property and the dwellings to the north which face towards [address]. As a consequence, the current strip being located in-front of the fence replicates the landscaped front gardens of these dwellings. The proposed siting of the fence would cause it to project forward of both the properties and neighbouring dwelling’ front elevations and, as such, it would appear an incongruous and conspicuous boundary treatment within the streetscene.

For the reasons given, it is concluded that the proposed development would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area, in particular the streetscene, and, as such, it would conflict with Policies PL1 and PL6 of the Harlow Local Development Plan. Amongst other matters these policies expect a high standard of urban and architectural design, including responding to the front boundary treatments, and not compromising the urban design principles of the surrounding area associated with other open spaces, such as landscaping strips. Accordingly, it is concluded that this appeal should be dismissed.