Appeal 6000052

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council used a different description for the development in its decision, but there is no evidence before me to confirm that this was agreed. I have used the original description that was entered on the application form, although I have omitted the term ‘retrospective’, as this is not an act of development.

The fence has already been erected, and I have considered the appeal on this basis.

On 12 December 2024 the Government published its revised National Planning Policy Framework. Its content relative to the main issue of the appeal is largely unchanged. It has not therefore been necessary to give the parties opportunity to comment on the revisions.

The effect on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site is within a well developed area with large dwellings that are mainly detached, and stand within generously sized plots. Dwellings are mostly set back from the road edge, and the area features a good number of large trees. This gives the area a mature and spacious character and appearance.

As a result of its corner position, the appeal site presents its long side boundary to the road, and this is seen across a large area of the adjacent road junction. This includes the more open aspects of the area at the front of the dwelling and the side boundary to its rear garden. The boundary separates the site from the busy road junction. As well as the need to provide privacy, which is particularly important for the rear garden, the new boundary also seeks to securely retain the garden level, as it is significantly higher than the level of the adjacent road.

In this respect I find it reasonable for a solid boundary to be erected to account for the change in level. Its height would appear necessary where it provides privacy at the rear, but towards the front of the property I am not satisfied that it is essential for it to be so high or solid. At my visit I saw examples of similar boundaries nearby, of a similar height. These largely take the form of a simple and neat arrangement with a timber fence standing over a brick wall.

In contrast, the boundary at the appeal site has a muddled appearance. The concrete boards are positioned at inconsistent heights along the boundary, which looks ill considered. Furthermore, they are a rather primitive and crude material choice for such a prominent façade; more commonly used in discreet secondary locations. They are not suited to such a prominent location, and I note that the other boundaries referred to appear to use neat brick walls to serve a similar purpose. The use of sections of trellis allows a view through the top of the fence and lessens its solid appearance. However, this element introduces a further component that makes the fence more prominent, particularly in this curved format.

The choice of design appears out of place in the context of the bold and carefully ordered form of the host dwelling. Its appearance is not helped by the three different sections of wall below, which although not part of this application, serve to further muddle the mix of materials that are used to form this side boundary.

Mitigation is offered in the form of painting and / or planting. Painting the panels and concrete boards would not disguise the mix of materials, and there is insufficient space between the fence and the wall for plants to establish that could meaningfully mitigate its harmful appearance.

In summary, the fence is not of an appropriate design quality for its prominent roadside location. It has a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the area and is contrary to Policy 37 of the London Borough of Bromley Local Plan 2019, which seeks to ensure that development is designed to a high standard, is attractive, and contributes positively to the streetscene.

For the reasons above, the appeal should be dismissed.