Appeal 6002595

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The appeal site lies within the historic core of [address] which comprises a mix of housing set back either side of the street behind grass verges. Property boundaries are generally formed by hedging or low walling punctuated by driveways which are mostly open and without gates.

[site address] is typical of the area’s established character, with a mature hedge marking the front boundary of the property. An open driveway crossing extends over a grass verge to the front forecourt and provides views towards the house as commonly experienced with other properties.

The proposal is for a pair of tall, close board, timber gates. Whilst set back to the rear of the hedging line, these gates would be highly visible in views from both directions along [address]. The solid nature of the gates would be harmful to the otherwise open character of the local area, and the height would contribute to them being a dominant and incongruous feature in the street scene. Whilst evergreen hedging flanks the driveway, there is no guarantee that this will survive in perpetuity as partial screening.

There are a limited number of nearby houses within the surrounding area that have front boundary gates. However, where these exist, they are mostly low and of an open design, comprising timber bars or metal railing components, thereby reducing their solidity and sense of enclosure. On site, I noted taller gates at [address], near to the site. However, these are substantially set back from the road and include an open railed top section that reduces their screening. In any case, those other examples do not form a prominent feature of the surrounding area, and have not led me to an alternative conclusion on this main issue.

Overall, I conclude that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area. As such it conflicts with Policy CS11 and CS12 of the Dacorum Borough Council Core Strategy (2013) which requires, amongst other matters, for development to preserve attractive streetscapes.

The site lies within the [site address] Conservation Area (the CA). Heritage matters do not form part of the Council’s reason for refusing the proposed development. Nonetheless, in line with section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act), I have paid special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA.

The special interest and significance of the CA is largely derived from historic connections with the site of the priory, former [name] and Deer Park. It contains a number of high quality historic buildings of architectural value of which this site does not significantly contribute to. Bearing in mind the position, nature and extent of the proposal, I consider that they would have a neutral effect on, and would therefore preserve, the character and appearance of the CA as a whole. As such, the proposal would not harm the significance of the designated heritage asset. Nevertheless, the lack of harm in this respect does not weigh for or against the appeal and does not alter my conclusion on the main issue.

The applicant has argued that the gate would provide practical benefits in terms of security and boundary definition. Whilst this is acknowledged, this matter does not outweigh the harm identified above.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and that there are no material considerations that indicate that the development should be determined other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.