Appeal 6000413

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for new front access gates and boundary wall and associated piers and railings. Replacement of the existing hardstanding and paving and extension of the existing driveway. Associated landscaping alterations at [site address] , Stanmore, Barnet, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 24/3965/HSE, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos PP-13374940v1, 002BH, 003BH and 006A.

The materials used in the development hereby permitted shall be constructed in the materials identified on drawing nos 002BH and 003BH.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

There are two application forms within the submitted evidence, with differing descriptions of development. The description of development within the banner heading above is taken from the amended application form, provided by the Council. This was the description used by the Council for its consultation and on its decision notice. The other description is evidently for the same development, albeit it includes superfluous information which is not a description of development. For these reasons, I am satisfied that the description used within the banner heading above is appropriate and that no parties would be prejudiced by its use.

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

The appeal site comprises a two-storey detached dwelling situated within a partly residential area. Most of the front boundary treatments of properties in the area are formed of low brick walls, some of which include taller brick piers. Several of the properties also feature taller metal railings and gates. The walls, railings and gates often combine with dense hedges on the front boundaries, contributing to a pleasing verdant character in the street scene. Although the appeal site has two open entrances, its front boundary also features a low stone wall and a very tall, dense hedge above, conforming to the verdant feel of this part of [address]. As such, the appeal site makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area.

The Council refer to its Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). This advises that frontages should generally remain open to view in order to enhance natural surveillance of the street and as such, walls, fences and hedges should be kept low. However, I observed on my site visit that the hedges together with the walls and railings in this area, including at the appeal site, enclose the frontages to a significant extent. So much so that the front gardens are often obscured from view and it is mainly the upper sections of the houses which are visible above the front boundaries.

Viewed in this context, although the overall size and the height of the proposed boundary wall, piers, railings and gates would be greater than the existing stone wall at the appeal site, its main brick wall section would nevertheless be low in height. Whilst the piers would be taller than the walls, they would be slender and would not appear overtly bulky or dominant. Similarly, the railings and gates would be open rather than solid and would provide views through to the planting in the front garden area. The plans also indicate that the existing tall hedge at the boundary would be removed, and whilst the intended height of the proposed ‘[name] planting is not provided, it is likely to be lower in height at least whilst establishing, thus allowing for further views into and out of the property.

Furthermore, the proposed boundary treatment would not be significantly different in terms of its design and height to some of the other front boundaries in the area, several of which include similar walls, piers, gates and railings. [name] am not aware of the full planning history for such installations, they form part of the immediate street scene. With that in mind, the proposal would not appear incongruous in this particular context. Accordingly, it would not be harmful to the appearance of this part of [address], including to its noteworthy verdant character.

Therefore, I conclude that the proposed development would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. It would comply with Policies D1, D4 and D5 of The London Plan (2021) which seek good design. It would also comply with Policy CDH01 of the Barnet Local Plan (2025) (BLP), which requires that developments respond sensitively to the distinctive local character. The Council also refer to Policy CDH05 of the BLP, however, as this policy relates to extensions to existing buildings, it is not determinative on the appeal. The proposal would also conform to the guidance within the SPD, which generally seeks to protect and enhance the character of the borough’s residential areas.

The standard time limit and the approved plans conditions are necessary in the interests of providing certainty for all parties.

A condition requiring that the materials used are those annotated on the approved plans is necessary in the interests of protecting the character and appearance of the area.

The Council have requested a condition requiring hard and soft landscaping details. However, the [name] indicates that there are no concerns with the re-landscaping of the front hardstanding area. Therefore, it is not necessary to request further details, and such a condition is not necessary.

The Council have also requested a condition requiring that details of visibility splays are provided. However, I see no clear evidence that the Council had any significant highway safety concerns when it considered the proposal, and no comments from a highway consultee have been provided. From my own observations, the footpath on this part of [address] is fairly wide and pedestrian movements along the footpath are likely to be limited given the area is generally quiet. For these reasons, and in the absence of any substantive evidence to the contrary, this condition is not necessary.

The proposed development would comply with the development plan as a whole and there are no other material considerations, which would alter this finding. Therefore, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed.