Appeal 3340829

The appeal is dismissed.

The fence the subject of this appeal is already in place. As well as its retention, the scheme involves the provision of a green mesh, as described in the appellant’s statement and as depicted on drawing no. 19/418/002 [name]. I have dealt with the appeal on this basis.

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

The host comprises a mid-terrace property, which sits on a roughly ‘L’ shaped plot, with a hardstanding area fronting on to [address]. Where the buildings on [address] are set back from the road, they are typically sited behind low masonry walls, or low metal railings. That boundary treatment either abuts the pavement as at [address], or is set back slightly from it sometimes behind landscaping, such as opposite this site at [name].

The metal fencing and sliding gate on this site are around 2.2 metres high. Whilst they are lower than the buildings to either side, and allow views through to the parking area just beyond, they are substantially taller than most nearby frontage boundary treatment. Rather than architecturally-designed as claimed, they appear as a standard, sharply-pointed, palisade security feature. The combined effect of their design, height, and siting next to the pavement, makes them an imposing and unwelcoming presence in the streetscene.

[name] observed a short section of palisade fencing next to [address] just beyond the railway bridge to the south, that is not typical of the area; and compared to the black metal fencing a little way to the north of the site at [address] this fencing is taller and of a more intimidating design. The boundary treatment at [address] is much subtler, lower and more bespoke than here.

In order to mitigate its impact on the streetscene, the appellant has suggested that the boundary treatment could be provided with a green mesh. [name] have few details of that proposal, I consider that it would result in a rather contrived and artificial appearance, which would contrast unfavourably with other boundary treatment materials in the area, and it would result in an incongruous sense of enclosure along this part of the streetscene.

For the above reasons, the scheme causes significant harm to the streetscene and to the character and appearance of the immediate area. It therefore conflicts with The London Plan (2021) (‘LP’) Policy D4, and [site address] Local Plan 2031 (2020) (‘THLP’) Policy S.DH1. Amongst other things, and in general terms, these require good design, that respects and positively responds to its context, having regard to matters such as height and materials.

However, as LP Policy HC1 addresses the historic environment, and THLP Policy D.H3 addresses housing standards, they are not relevant to this scheme.

The appellant states that the fencing is required to prevent anti-social behaviour and unauthorised parking, and to improve the household’s privacy. However, I am not persuaded that this scheme is the only way in which those issues could be addressed, and the benefit to the appellant does not outweigh the significant harm that the development causes to the character and appearance of the area.

For these reasons, and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed.