Appeal 6001671

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs has been made by [name] against the Council of the London Borough of Camden and is the subject of a separate decision.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; and • whether the proposed outward-opening doors would unacceptably impact pedestrian safety and movement along the adjoining footway.

The appeal site is a mid‐terrace house in a traditional residential street, where modest front gardens provide a small but consistent separation between dwellings and the public footway. At the appeal property, this space is enclosed by a low wall with railings, a feature that contributes positively to the character of the area.

The terraced arrangement provides a consistent form of development. However, the streetscene is not entirely uniform, displaying some variation in the materials and forms of front boundary treatments. The evidence suggests that the existing wall and railings are non-original, and there is nothing before me to indicate that they are subject to any specific controls that would prevent their removal. However, this does not remove the requirement for any replacement structure to respond appropriately to local character and to meet the design expectations of

In this context, the proposed structure would constitute a noticeably bulky and dominant feature at the site frontage. It would replace the current modest and visually permeable boundary with a deeper, taller, and materially different enclosure that would read as a continuous built form along much of the site’s street frontage. The timber-clad appearance, combined with the stepped massing and the relatively solid presence of the unit, would be at odds with the area’s simple traditional character, where front garden treatments typically comprise low walls, railings, hedgerows, or other modest features. Although the living roof would introduce some greenery, this would not significantly reduce the visual prominence of the enclosure at street level.

I have taken account of the appellant’s reference to examples of similar structures in the area. In the case of the [address] example, the Council indicates this has been erected without planning permission, and accordingly it holds limited weight in my decision.

Another example is a site on [address] that is featured within the ‘Home Improvements’ Camden Planning Guidance, January 2021 (the HICPG). However, that document expressly states that images are illustrative and non‐binding. The image is presented under the “[name]” section as a close-cropped example, shown in isolation without any indication of its wider setting. Although that image does not clearly demonstrate that the arrangement is street‐fronting, the appellant’s submissions include a broader street‐view perspective, which confirms that the structure is positioned at the street frontage and exhibits some contextual similarities to the appeal proposal.

The appellant therefore advances a logical argument that the HICPG image supports their case. However, the close‐framed presentation of that image, together with the document’s accompanying caveats about illustrative content, does not convincingly demonstrate that such storage structures are acceptable as full‐length front boundary treatments in circumstances such as this case. Moreover, the wider‐angle image submitted by the appellant does not persuade me that the scheme before me would be acceptable when assessed against the specific circumstances of the appeal site.

Having regard to the overall design characteristics of the proposal, the nature of the surroundings and the available evidence, I am not persuaded that the development would sit comfortably against the established form and characteristics of the host building and neighbouring properties. The scale, form, and materially different appearance of the structure would result in an overly dominant and incongruous addition to the street frontage.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area and would conflict with Policy D1 of the Camden Local Plan 2017 (the CLP) and Policy 2 of the Fortune Green & West Hampstead Neighbourhood Plan, adopted by Camden Council September 2015 (the NP). Collectively, these policies seek to secure high quality design that respects, complements and enhances local context and character, and which positively interfaces with streets and streetscapes.

The ‘Transport’ Camden Planning Guidance, January 2021 (the TCPG), advises that new development should not incorporate doors or gates that project over footways because doing so raises safety concerns and can obstruct pedestrians. Policy T1 of the CLP similarly seeks to safeguard safe and unobstructed pedestrian movement, and Policy 9 of the NP emphasises the need to maximise pavement accessibility.

The appellant argues that any obstruction caused by the store’s outward‐opening doors would be limited, infrequent and momentary, noting that their double‐hinged design would allow them to lie flat against the front of the structure when fully open. However, the doors must still swing across the footway to reach that position, inevitably causing an obstruction during opening and closing. Even if supervised, the short‐lived nature of that obstruction would not avoid conflict with the clear and preventative approach in the relevant policies and guidance.

The appellant’s comparisons with car doors, wheelie bins, or historic outward‐opening gates are not proportionate. Those relate to historic arrangements or temporary obstructions caused by movable objects rather than a fixed, purpose‐built installation that must be determined against modern standards and would, by design, repeatedly encroach onto the public highway. Although the appellant also contends that sufficient footway width would remain to enable safe passage for pedestrians, wheelchair users and buggies, the essential issue is that any outward‐opening door projecting into the public highway represents an incursion into pedestrian space that the development plan and associated guidance seek to resist.

The appellant further notes that the aforementioned HICPG example features a similar door arrangement. Notwithstanding its illustrative nature, it is not clearly evident from the image whether those doors open outward, whether they slide, or whether any portion of the structure encroaches upon a public footway. I therefore cannot rely on that illustration as demonstrating the acceptability of outward‐opening doors in principle.

For the reasons given, I conclude that the proposed outward-opening doors would unacceptably impact pedestrian movements and harm public safety, resulting in conflict with Policy T1 of the CLP, Policy 9 of the NP, and the relevant provisions of the TCPG, the aims of which have previously been set out.

I note the appellant’s reference to other appeal decisions that they contend raised similar issues to those in the current appeal. However, I do not hold full details of those cases, and in any event each case must be determined on its own merits, having regard to its particular circumstances and the relevant development plan policies and material considerations. The limited information before me does not demonstrate that those decisions arose from sufficiently comparable contexts, nor do they provide a basis for setting aside the clear policy conflict identified in this case.

The proposal would deliver certain benefits. The provision of secure cycle storage would support and encourage sustainable modes of transport, aligning with the wider aims of the development plan and the National Planning Policy Framework to promote sustainable and active travel, and to reduce reliance on private vehicles. The addition of a green roof would introduce new planting where none currently exists, offering a modest biodiversity enhancement consistent with urban greening objectives. The appellant also explains that the scheme would improve the functionality of the dwelling by providing organised and covered space for bicycles and refuse, thereby better meeting the day‐to‐day needs of occupants.

These are acknowledged positive factors to which I attach moderate weight. However, they do not outweigh the harm I have identified though the conflict with

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.