Appeal 3288995

The Council has described the development as the erection of a front and side boundary brick wall with gates which more accurately describes the development. However, I note that part of the proposed front and side boundary treatment would consist of a wall with railings above.

At the time of my site visit a new wall and pillars were already in place and the front garden had been paved over to provide parking areas.

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect on (a) the character and appearance of the street scene and (b) the living conditions of the occupiers of the adjoining property, No. 114a [site address] .

The dwelling on the appeal site is a substantial two-storey detached property located at the end of a residential street. It occupies a corner site at the junction of [site address] and [address], the latter being a reasonably busy road with residential and commercial properties nearby. There had previously been a low brick wall marking the front garden of the appeal site along the [site address] frontage extending around the corner and along part of the [address] frontage, the remainder being a high timber fence marking the rear garden.

[site address] is wholly residential in character comprising older terraced dwellings. The road frontage within the vicinity of the site is predominantly characterised by a mixture of low brick walls with planting behind and wholly open frontages which have been hard surfaced to allow off street parking. That part of [address] that is within the immediate context of the appeal site is of similar character and appearance.

The proposal partly comprises a low brick wall with railings above interspersed with brick pillars to a total height of about 1.7 metres. It would extend along part of the [site address] frontage turning the corner into [address] extending up to the existing boundary feature marking the rear garden of the appeal property. The remainder of the [site address] frontage would comprise two sliding gates of metal construction to match the appearance of the railings set between brick pillars to a similar overall height. The proposed wall which would be located along the majority of the boundary between the appeal site and the adjoining property, No. 114a [site address] , would be just over two metres in height with a wall and railings towards the front.

The proposed brick wall around the front garden of the property would be of relatively low height but the higher brick pillars with railings in between and adjoining gates would result in a boundary feature of significantly greater height than is generally characteristic of the immediate area in which the appeal site is located.

Whilst the railings would afford views through to the front of the appeal site, the overall visual impact would nevertheless be one of a relatively high and solid boundary feature. Furthermore, it would appear that the whole of the front garden area is to be hardstanding for parked cars with no planting or landscaping provided to soften the visual impact. Overall, this would result in the introduction of an incongruous feature at a very prominent corner location within the street scene which had previously been more open in character.

I therefore find that the proposal would have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the street scene. It would thereby conflict with Policy LP26 of the Redbridge Local Plan 2015-2030 (2018) (LP) which seeks high quality design that respects local character and is well integrated with and complements the local area.

The Appellant has drawn my attention to a number of properties within the wider area where front boundary enclosures of a similar height to that proposed have been built. However, none of these appear to be within the immediate context of the appeal site and the circumstances in which they were permitted is unclear. In my view they are not directly comparable with the appeal proposals which I have considered having regard to the particular characteristics of their context.

The Appellant also refers to permitted development rights that could enable the erection of a one metre high wall along the front boundary of the property extending around the corner. Whilst this could introduce a more solid feature, it would nevertheless be noticeably lower in height than the appeal proposal and would not in my opinion have the same harmful visual impact.

As noted above, the proposals include the erection of a wall of just over two metres height along the side garden boundary of the adjoining property, No. [address]. This is to replace an existing two metre high fence.

Whilst noting that a brick wall would present a more solid appearance to the garden area of the adjoining property, I do not consider that it would be unacceptably more oppressive or overbearing than the existing fence which it would only marginally exceed in height. In addition, as noted by the Appellant, the fence could be replaced by a wall of the same height under permitted development rights in any event.

The occupiers of the adjoining property would have the opportunity to soften the appearance of the wall should they so wish. Overall, I find that their living conditions would not be harmed. I therefore find that the proposal would accord with LP Policy LP30 which seeks development that is well integrated with the local area and safeguards the amenity of nearby dwellings.

Overall, whilst the proposal would be acceptable in respect of the living conditions of the occupiers of the adjoining property, it would have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the street scene, resulting in conflict with the development plan overall. I have noted the concerns of the Appellant with regard to the need to maintain the security of the appeal property following recent theft of property and vehicles. However, I am not convinced that the appeal proposal is the only means whereby such security can be provided and this factor is not sufficient to outweigh this conflict.

I therefore conclude that this appeal should be dismissed.