Appeal 6000252

The appeal is dismissed.

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

[address] is characterised by detached and semi-detached dwellings set back from the road with off-street parking to the front. Whilst there is variety in the materials used for boundary treatments between the front gardens and the back edge of the footway, they largely consist of low stone or brick walls between higher piers and some have planting to the rear. With street trees and grass verges, this results in a street with a pleasant, open and harmonious character.

In this respect, the erection of a boundary wall with piers would not be at odds with the general character of the street. Given the wide variety of materials used in boundary walls elsewhere in the road, the use of render to match the host dwelling would not be inappropriate. The open railings between the piers and to the gates would allow views into the site and I saw other examples of railings between piers in the street.

However, at an overall height of 1.8 metres, the proposed development would be out of keeping with the prevailing height of frontage boundary treatments in the street. The appeal proposal would be a visually prominent feature which would appear incongruous and dominate the street scene. This would be harmful to the character and appearance of the street.

The appeal proposal would conflict with Policy D3 of The London Plan, adopted March 2021 and Policy 37 of the Bromley Local Plan, adopted January 2019 which seek a high standard of design which positively responds to local distinctiveness and contributes to the existing street scene.

My attention has been drawn to properties on surrounding roads1 which have walls, piers and railings to the front boundary with the footway. However, with the exception of the proposal for a 1.6 metre high front boundary at 164 [name] Road2, I have not been provided with evidence relating to the planning status of the examples put to me. In any event, I found the character of these roads and the variety of existing boundary treatments to be markedly different to that on [address] such that they are not comparable to the appeal site and the proposal before me.

[name] have no doubt that the appeal proposal would increase security at the property, there is no evidence that the appeal proposal 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. There is no evidence before me that the addition of gates to the vehicular access, even those with a quick opening time and long-range remote control, would improve traffic safety in the vicinity the appeal site. Together, I give these very limited weight.

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.