Appeal 3278492

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council’s reason for refusal referred to policies in the Draft Revised Lambeth Local Plan (2020) (DRLLP). The DRLLP was submitted to the Secretary of State for examination on 22 May 2020 and the [name] received on 22 July 2021. The Council has confirmed that none of the DRLLP policies referred to in the reasons for refusal are affected by the Inspector’s recommended modifications and as such I accord them substantial weight.

The main issue is whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Streatham Park and [address] Conservation Area.

[address] is characterised by large, detached houses set back from the road on generous plots. It lies within the Streatham Park and [address] Conservation Area (CA) and opposite the tree lined edge of [name]. Front boundaries are varied. Some consist of close board wooden fences. Several, including the appeal site, consist of brick piers topped with coping stones with lower brick panels in between them. Some have railings above the panels, as is the case with the appeal property. Where additional screening is provided, either to prevent views above the fences or in between the gaps in railings, it generally consists of hedges behind the boundary walls. This combination of hard boundaries and soft landscaping behind contributes to the character and appearance of the CA.

The development comprises a wooden trellis, made of narrow horizontal wooden boards, set behind the railings which sit above the brick panels. This additional wooden screen blocks the gaps between the railings which would otherwise allow glimpses into the front garden. Whilst gaps between the boards to an extent reduce the appearance of a solid screen, it is at odds with the softer hedge screening elsewhere and is an incongruous and unsympathetic addition which harms the appearance of the area.

I note that properties on [address] that back onto [address], adjacent to the appeal site, have fence panels against the inside of their boundary walls which provide similar screening. However, according to the Council they do not have planning permission, and, in any case, they highlight the incongruity of such developments.

Given the small scale of the development within the context of the CA as a whole, it would not harm its character. There would however be harm in terms of its appearance. The harm would be localised, limited and less than substantial but would nevertheless be contrary to Policies Q2, Q5, Q15 and Q22 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015) and DRLLP which require development to conserve or enhance the character or appearance of CA’s, respond to local context, and replicate positive locally distinct boundary treatments.

Any harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset requires justification and, in accordance with paragraph 202 of the National Planning Policy Framework, I must weigh the harm against the public benefits of the proposal. No public benefits have been put forward by the appellant to outweigh the harm to the appearance of the CA that I have identified.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.