Appeal 6000786

The appeal is dismissed.

In the heading above, I have taken the description of development from the application form, but I have removed superfluous text in the interests of conciseness.

I observed that the development has already been carried out and accords with the plans before me. I have therefore considered the appeal on the basis that the development has taken place.

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

Policy 37 of the Bromley Local Plan 2019 (Local Plan) requires development to be of a good architectural quality and to make a positive contribution to the existing street scene. Policy D3 of the London Plan requires development to follow a design-led approach to determine the most appropriate form of development that responds positively to the site’s context. It further expects proposals to achieve safe, secure and inclusive environments. Policy D4 of the London Plan requires the design of development proposal to be thoroughly scrutinised, and for the design quality to be retained through to completion.

The appeal site comprises a detached bungalow prominently positioned on the corner of [address] and [address]. Dwellings in the area are generally set back from the road behind front gardens, some of which provide off-street parking. With the exception of some high close-boarded fences, boundary treatments are typically open to the street, or they consist of low boundary walls or planting. This arrangement contributes to the open character of the area and creates a sense of spaciousness along the frontage, thereby enhancing the overall quality of the street scene.

The appeal development comprises timber panels with concrete posts enclosing the south-western corner of the site. Owing to its prominent corner plot location, the site is visible from [address] and [address]. By reason of its excessive height, length and solid appearance, the appeal development appears visually dominant and creates a continuous boundary along the frontage, diminishing the sense of spaciousness that characterises the area. The adverse effect is exacerbated by its prominent corner location as the boundary fence is highly visible from both streets. This results in an overly enclosed appearance that is incongruous with the surrounding pattern of development. As a result, the appeal development erodes the prevailing character of the area and causes harm to the character and appearance of the site and its setting in the street scene.

The Inspector dismissed the appeal1 relating to the existing shed, and considered that, in the absence of a boundary fence to screen the shed, the shed would dominate the appearance of the bungalow, eroding the otherwise open character of the frontage of the appeal site. In this instance, although the existing fence may mitigate some of the visual harm arising from the shed, the appeal development introduces a new, prominent and intrusive feature within the street scene. Whilst there is some benefit in screening the existing shed, this would not outweigh the harm I have identified.

The appellant suggests that there is no planning enforcement case concerning the timber fence at No [address], a corner plot situated opposite the appeal site, and the Council made no request for a retrospective application for the neighbours’ fence. Whilst this may be the case, the orientation of No 85 differs from the bungalow at the appeal site, as it fronts onto [address]. In addition, the boundary treatment at No 85 comprises a combination of timber fence above low brick walls with brick posts. Therefore, it is not directly comparable to the appeal development.

The detached garage, which was allowed at appeal, at No [address] is of different nature. In addition, the garage is set at a slightly lower level than the street level, and the material has similar external facing materials to its main dwelling. As such, it is not directly comparable to the appeal development.

The appellant has drawn my attention to other boundary fences in the area. These features are not directly comparable, this is due to differences in siting, design, scale or height, as well as their location within a different visual context. Therefore, they do not change my conclusion on this main issue.

The appellant has referred that the bungalow at the appeal site is solely served by a side garden and is not served by a private rear garden. However, the approved site plan indicated that the side garden would be bounded by some planting. Whilst boundary fencing may offer increased privacy and security for gardens, the excessive scale and overly enclosed design of the existing fence detract from the prevailing character of the area, and any such benefit does not outweigh the harm I have identified. 1 APP/G5180/D/24/3351871

The Council do not raise objections to the appeal development in terms of highway or pedestrian safety and living conditions. But the compliance with the development plan in these respects is a neutral factor.

I conclude that the appeal development would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area. As such, it would not comply with Policy 37 of the Local Plan 2019 and Policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan 2021. Taken together, these seek that development is designed to the high standard and is in-keeping with the existing character of the area.

I note reference has been made to Policy D8 of the London Plan. However, this policy specifically relates to public realm, therefore, is not relevant to this decision.

For the reasons given the above the appeal should be dismissed.