Appeal 6000658

The appeal is dismissed.

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.

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

The appeal site is a wide and deep plot located in an attractive open verdant residential area, set amongst similar sized plots with many dwellings having been rebuilt or undergone significant adaption or enlargement. Consequently, there is a wide variety of designs and sizes within the street scene. Boundary treatments also vary with brick walls and railings not uncommon, contributing to a varied character, but one of substance, size and a quality to visual permeability.

The proposed garage would have a shallow hipped roof and adopt a design and materials consistent with the substantial dwelling currently under construction. While there would be an obvious visual effect arising from its forward position, this would be tempered by the prevailing mixed and varied streetscape which has no strong or uniform building line. It would be read against the backdrop of a large dwelling, which would remain the dominant feature.

The boundary wall and railings, although substantial, would not appear out of keeping with the existing pattern of development and would be read alongside similar structures in the street scene. However, examples cited generally retain a degree of openness and visual permeability, with gates typically formed of railings that allow views through to the dwellings and landscaping beyond that softens their effect. In contrast, the stark design and solid, impermeable form of the proposed gates would introduce a dominant and visually intrusive feature that would be incongruous in the street scene. This solidness would interrupt the established consistent rhythm of permeability and diminish the positive sense of openness.

The scheme, therefore, and taken as a whole, would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. As such, it would be contrary to Policy 26 of the Havering Local Plan 2016 – 2031 (2021) and guidance contained in the [name] and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2011). Amongst other things, these seek to ensure new development is of high quality design and respects the distinctive qualities and identity of the local street scene.

The appeal scheme might be acceptable in other respects, such as highway safety and the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. These would however be neural matters and incapable of weighing in favour of the proposals against the harm I have found.

For the reasons given above, the appeal proposals would conflict with the development plan and there are no sufficiently weighty material considerations to indicate a decision other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

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