Appeal 3327250

The appeal is dismissed.

The development has been completed; this does not alter the way I consider the merits of the proposal.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on i) the character and appearance of the locality and ii) pedestrian safety.

The appeal property is a semi-detached two-storey dwelling with an upper front dormer and an attractive period front elevation and detailing. It is in a stretch of similar homes along the road. Some homes have no front enclosure but most do and these vary in treatment and materials but almost without exception are of low-level form. The locality is one of established residential character and the streetscene has a pleasing visual quality.

The appeal proposal is as described above. The stock brickwork wall has a maximum height of 1.17m, and when combined with the railings to the front and side boundaries of the property measure a maximum height of 1.6m. The wrought iron gates to the front boundary have a maximum height of 2m.

The heights noted above are in marked contrast to virtually all other front boundaries found on this long stretch of road. Even though one can still appreciate the front elevation of the host property behind by seeing though the wrought iron the structures appear excessive relative to the scale of the front garden and alien in a scene where low frontage boundaries absolutely predominate. In the circumstances to my mind the appeal proposal is jarring on the eye and harmful to the locality in character and appearance terms.

Policies Q5 and Q15 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021) 2020 – 2035 (LP) are relevant. These policies, taken together and amongst other matters, seek to protect local distinctiveness and retain or enable characteristic boundary treatments and set out clear parameters for this to be achieved. I note that there is a degree of flexibility for the parameters. However, it is understandably made clear that the raising in height of existing boundaries will only be supported where it is undertaken in a well-designed and carefully detailed manner which is consistent with local character and not discordant; given my description of the locality these are not circumstances which I would deem to apply at the appeal site. I conclude that the appeal scheme is simply of too great a height and that there would thus be conflict with [name] Q5 and Q15 in aesthetic terms.

The Council is concerned that the structure adjacent to the crossover is overly tall and it feels that there is nothing in the scheme to show that this would not harm pedestrian sightlines and visibility. There is clearly no set-back and heights and the form of structures are clearly evident. In all the circumstances, on the pedestrian safety front I am satisfied. I say this because in this situation, along this relatively quiet road, on a reasonable width footway, with pedestrians well aware of the scope for vehicles entering and exiting front gardens, and with visibility generally being readily available over or round the thin structures, I feel pedestrian safety risk would be minimal.

Therefore, in terms of pedestrian safety, whilst there would be notional exceedance of pertinent dimensions within LP Policy Q5 I conclude that there would be no conflict with this policy’s key relevant objective of safeguarding pedestrians.