Appeal 6000143

The appeal is dismissed.

I have also dealt with another appeal (Ref: 6000107) on this site. That appeal is subject of a separate decision.

I saw at my site visit that the wall and piers had been erected. The railings and gate had not been installed.

The main issue is the effect of the appeal proposal on the character and appearance of the area which is within the Marlings Park Estate Area of Special Residential Character (ASRC).

The appeal site is located in a residential area where there is a variety of boundary treatments between the front gardens of properties and the footway. In the vicinity of the appeal site, there are a number properties with front gardens which are open with a low wall or edging feature which defines the back edge of the footway. There are others which have low walls and planting and some which have walls which enclose the frontage of the property in the manner proposed in this appeal. In this context, the appeal proposal would not appear out of keeping with those properties that already have walls, railing and gates enclosing the front garden. The overall height and design would also be consistent with those elsewhere on the road so it would not appear visually intrusive or overbearing.

However, the appeal site is located in the ASRC which has been designated to reflect its distinct character. The ‘area description’ set out in the Bromley Local Plan adopted January 2019 (LP) refers to houses having front gardens, most of ____________________________________________________________________________________________ which remain open, fronted by low boundary walls. From the evidence before me, I note that the appeal site consisted of a level front garden area with a low wall defining the back edge of the footway, prior to the works being carried out. The appeal site therefore positively contributed towards the special character of the ASRC.

The erection of a wall with piers, railings and gates would enclose the frontage of the appeal site. This would be at odds with the prevailing character of the ASRC described above and would not respect, enhance or strengthen the special and distinctive qualities of the ASRC which includes the front gardens being open, fronted by low boundary walls.

The Council advise that many of the examples of properties with gates, walls, piers and railings that I saw, do not benefit from planning permission or were granted planning permission prior to the ASRC designation. There is no substantive evidence to the contrary. Therefore, the presence of these in the street scene does not justify the further erosion of those features which contribute positively to the overall character and appearance of the area.

[name] have no doubt that the appeal proposal would act as a deterrent to car theft and crime, there is no evidence that this is the only means that this could be achieved. The lack of a highway safety objection is a neutral factor and does not weigh in favour of the proposal.

Therefore, whilst I have found that the proposal would not appear visually intrusive, overbearing or out of keeping with some surrounding boundary treatments on the road, it would enclose the front garden in a manner which is not consistent with prevailing boundary treatment in the ASRC. This would be harmful to its special and distinctive qualities and the overall character and appearance of the area. The proposal would conflict with Policies 37 and 44 of the LP insofar as they require that development positively contributes to the existing street scene and respects, enhances and strengthens the special and distinctive qualities of the ASRC.

The proposed development is contrary to the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations that outweigh this conflict. Consequently, with reference to Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the appeal is dismissed.