Appeal 3314650

The appeal is dismissed.

The development has been undertaken. I am therefore considering the appeal retrospectively.

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

The appeal property is a two-storey detached dwellinghouse. It is situated on a residential street where there are a variety of property styles and sizes. Properties are set back from the highway with front gardens and/or driveways. Some properties have no front boundary treatments giving them an open appearance. Others have walls of around 1m in height or less, whilst others have low walls with railings in between low brick piers. Although there is a wide range of front boundary treatments, for the vast majority, they are low in nature, that gives the area an open aspect which positively contributes to its overall character and appearance.

The boundary treatment at the appeal property is markedly different to those of the surrounding properties. Although the brick part of the lower sections of the wall are not too dissimilar in terms of height and design to other properties, the cumulative impact of the railings on top of the wall, and several high brick piers, results in it being harmfully out of character with the immediate surroundings.

The combination of its height, length and design results in a dominant feature being created in the street-scene, which, when viewed against the other boundary treatments, appears incongruous and visually discordant.

I therefore find that the development causes significant harm to the character and appearance of the area. It is contrary to Policies 7 and 26 of the Havering Local Plan (2021) which require, amongst other things, that development is of high-quality design, respects and complements the distinctive qualities, identity and character of the site and the local area, including the street-scene and frontages.

The development is also contrary to guidance contained in the [name] and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (2011) which outlines that boundary treatments should reinforce the prevailing character of the streetscape.

I acknowledge that the boundary treatment has been installed in the interests of security. There is limited substantive evidence on this matter that would lead me to conclude in favour of the development and that would outweigh the harm I have identified. Such security measures, in the form of high boundary treatments, have not been undertaken at surrounding properties and there are often other measures that can be taken to improve security.

I agree, as the appellant has outlined, being the first to do something, is not a reason to withhold planning permission on its own. It is, however, pertinent to consider how a development fits with its surroundings, as I have done in my decision. Furthermore, I accept that the boundary treatment may have been installed in good faith. The fact that it was installed without planning permission has itself had no bearing on my decision, other than I have acknowledged it is being considered retrospectively. This would not, however, be a reason to allow the appeal.

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