Appeal 3374660

The appeal is dismissed.

The application form states that the development has been completed. While brick piers have been constructed, in addition to a lower wall, the railings and gates shown on the plans have not been installed. The appeal is therefore being determined part retrospectively and does not include the lower brick wall between the piers. For the avoidance of doubt, I shall make my decision against the plans submitted with the application and listed on the decision notice.

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

The appeal site consists of a large dwelling within a row of detached dwellings fronting [address]. Development in the locality is typically set back with a footway and strip of grass separating properties from the road. Dwellings are primarily positioned away from the front boundaries giving the area a spacious character.

Front boundaries in the area vary but are primarily formed by low walls with a range of brick finishes and enclose the space between the footway and properties. The lower brick walls are typically topped with metal railings. Substantial entrance gates are prevalent in the area and include ornate metal designs. The Council indicates that some of the front boundary treatments did not receive planning permission. Nonetheless, there is no substantive evidence before me indicating that they are not lawful and/or are the subject to any enforcement action.

The proposal includes metal railings between the brick piers. While railings are a common feature in [address] and allow for views into properties, their use is typically combined with low brick walls between brick piers. Metal railings without brick piers are present within the street scene, including at No 20 and to the corner of [address] and [address]. However, these jar with the predominant form of boundary treatment, where the lower brick walls break up the overall scale of the railings. The proposal, incorporating tall railings between brick piers, would unacceptably contrast with the prevailing rhythm of existing frontages in the area.

The proposal includes the retention of the brick piers and the addition of two metal entrance gates to either end of the boundary. A personnel gate is proposed close to the side boundary with No [address] (No 4). While the brick piers are considerably higher than those of No 4, they are of a similar height to those of neighbouring properties, including No [address]. The brick piers and entrance gates complement the prevailing design and height of boundary treatments on this side of [address]. Nevertheless, the considerable expanse of railings would be a harmful addition to the character and appearance of the area.

I conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. The development therefore conflicts with Policies 7 and 26 of the Havering Local Plan 2021, which collectively seek to promote high quality design that respect and complement the distinctive qualities, identity and character of the site and local area.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.