Appeal 3340026

The appeal is dismissed.

I have taken the date of the application in the banner above from the appeal form and the Council’s decision notice. This is because the date on the application form, within the Declaration, is incorrect.

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

The appeal property is a two-storey detached dwelling which is positioned centrally within a row of large detached properties. Land between the dwelling and the public highway is laid to hardstanding for parking. The front and side boundary with No.[address] are not defined by boundary treatment, while the boundary with No.[address] comprises a low-level post and rail fence and soft landscaping. The surrounding area is predominantly residential in character. Dwellings along this part of [address], between [address] and [address], have a generally consistent building line and front curtilages which have open or low-level boundaries. On the opposite side of [address] is a large area of public open space. The open frontages and public open space opposite provide an open and spacious character to this part of [address].

The development would be provided on all three sides to the front of the appeal property, enclosing the existing parking area. The height of the boundary would erode the existing open character of the frontages along this part of Appeal Decision: APP/N5090/D/24/3340026 [address] and, as such, would appear as a prominent and alien addition to the streetscene. The central position of the dwelling, within this row of properties, means that the railings would appear poorly related to existing boundaries and therefore would appear as an isolated intervention. [name] acknowledge that the design of the boundary would allow for views through, the isolated positioning and overall height means that the proposals would appear contextually at odds with its surroundings. Furthermore, its siting immediately adjacent to the public highway, would mean that the incongruity and prominence of the development would be apparent from both directions along [address] and from the public open space opposite. Existing landscaping would, to a degree, help to partially screen the development from some limited vantage points, although this is not so substantial to mitigate the harmful effects of the proposals.

I note that there are a range of boundary treatments in the wider area, including tall boundaries adjacent to the highway further along [address], and on other streets. However, as I have observed above, the context of this site is the row of properties that are located between [address] and [address] which is characterised by open frontages with low-level, unobtrusive boundary treatments. Therefore, I find other existing boundary treatments in the area to be contextually different.

I acknowledge that means of enclosure can be erected under permitted development rights1. However, I have no definitive evidence before me to demonstrate what could be constructed under such rights. In any event, the appeal proposals, when considered as a whole, greatly exceed what may possibly be allowed under these rights. Therefore, I am not persuaded that there is a realistic fallback that would have a similar, or more harmful, impact than the appeal proposals.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the development has an unacceptable and harmful effect on the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area. Therefore, the development conflicts with Policy CS5 of Barnet’s Local Plan ([name]) Development Plan Document (2012); Policy DM01 of Barnet’s Local Plan (Development Management Policies) Development Plan Document (2012); and, D3 of The London Plan. Together, amongst other things, these require that development respect local context and achieve high quality design. The development also conflicts with the guidance contained within the Local Plan Supplementary Planning Document: The Residential Design Guide (2016) which requires that front garden walls, fencing and railings should be sympathetic to the character of the building and garden.

For the above reasons the appeal is dismissed.