Appeal 6002047

The appeal is dismissed.

The development described in the banner heading above is in place and therefore this appeal relates to a planning application for retrospective planning permission.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the street scene.

The appeal property is a detached 2-storey house that has been extended to the side and rear and includes a pair of garages to one side. There is a rear garden which is bounded at the back by a heavily treed railway embankment. Whilst this private amenity space is shallower in depth than neighbouring gardens it is relatively wide and compatible with the size of the house.

The property is situated in a residential estate that is characterised by predominately open frontages without any form of physical boundary between the pavement and the front gardens. This gives the street scene a relatively open and spacious character, a matter to which I attach significant weight.

The appeal site includes a narrow strip of space situated to the side of the garages which is bounded by the pavement on one side and embankment on the other. This land has been enclosed by a 2m high timber panel fence on 3 sides. This development is the subject of this appeal.

The immediate setting of the appeal site is dominated by the trees on the railway embankment. Where the embankment is closest to [address] there is a narrow strip of grass and shrubs. Prior to its enclosure the side portion of the appeal site formed part of this landscaping and made a significant contribution to the verdant and open character of the street scene.

The appeal scheme has enclosed this space thereby detracting from the verdant and open character of this portion of the street. This has resulted in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the street scene. I therefore conclude that due to its siting and size the appeal scheme fails to accord with Policy 37 of the London Borough of Bromley Local Plan (2019) which, amongst other matters, seeks to ensure that the scale and form of construction is compatible with development in the surrounding area. There is also conflict with the aims of Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) (LP) which seeks buildings and spaces that positively respond to local distinctiveness.

I note the existence of some tall timber fencing in the wider area. This is sporadic and predominately appears to relate to the enclosure of rear gardens. In any event each planning application and appeal needs to be considered on its individual merits having regard to its particular characteristics and context. I therefore attribute limited weight to these fences.

I note that the land was previously solely bounded by a post and chain fence and dog owners may have allowed their dogs to defecate on the grass. There is nothing before me to demonstrate that a 2m high timber fence is needed to overcome this issue and therefore I attribute limited weight to this matter. I recognise that the appeal scheme would provide the appellant with additional private amenity space. However, this private benefit does not outweigh the harm identified above.

The Council’s reason for refusal refers to [name] D8 and T2. As the appeal scheme comprises the enclosure of privately owned land there is no conflict with these policies which relate to the public realm and streets.

For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should fail.