Appeal 6003545

The appeal is dismissed.

On my site visit I observed that a development which appeared to be broadly similar to the submitted plans had been constructed. I have determined the appeal on the basis of what I saw on site and the plans before me.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area and the Highgate Conservation Area.

The appeal property is a dwelling that has been subject to a series of modern extensions. The house faces onto [address] and [address] near to the junction with [address]. The property is in a raised location, behind a low-level wall, with an oak tree and a bay tree situated above. The southern side of [address] is characterised by tall brick walls whereas the northern side of the street, where the appeal site is located, features lower brick walls with planting on top and behind. This arrangement provides an open and permeable setting to this part of [address].

The development comprises a tall, close-boarded cedar fence and gate sat above the low-level wall with the bay tree behind. Both ends of the fence turn into the site to enclose the garden from the street. The height of the fence is contested between the parties, whereby the Council has indicated a height of approximately 4m. Whereas the appellant has provided visual evidence that this is closer to 3.2m from pavement level. Under the originally permitted scheme that accompanied the main alterations to the property, a sliding gate and hedge were to form the southern boundary with [address], instead of the fence which is currently in situ.

As indicated by the Highgate Conservation Area Appraisal and [name] (HCAAMS), the site lies within Sub Area 5: [address] & [address] of the Highgate Conservation Area (CA). The significance of the CA is derived from the patchwork of building types and scales that are unified by their relationship to the landscape and the vegetation. The appeal property integrates with this patchwork as it is an example of sensitive modern infill and therefore it makes a positive contribution towards the character and appearance of the CA.

Being on the northern side of the street, the fence is situated between low-level boundary treatments. The openness of this area isolates the fencing making it appear strikingly urban and emphasises its bulk and mass when viewed from [address] and [address]. Indeed, irrespective of its precise numerical height, the imbalanced proportion of the larger fence relative to the smaller brick wall below, magnifies its height within the street.

On visiting the site, it was evident that the cedar wood used in its construction has weathered to a lighter colour. Some planting sits in front and spreads across the fence’s sides, and while this may increase screening in the future, I am not persuaded that the future growth of the planting would be capable of adequately concealing the fence especially given its increased prominence resulting from its weathering appearance. The combination of the fence’s height, depth, and light colour, within a relatively open area, highlights its presence within the street and appears as a dominant, incongruous and harmful feature that does not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA.

Moreover, in relation to the sliding gate, whilst I accept that it would require excavation within the root protection area (RPA) of the bay tree and that this may cause harm to the tree, a sliding gate already has permission and therefore any harm to the tree which may occur as a result was accepted by the Council at the time of their decision.

I am required, under Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA. In line with Paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), great weight should be given to the conservation of a designated heritage asset when assessing the impact of a development on its significance. Having regard to Paragraph 215 of the Framework, the proposal amounts to less than substantial harm to the CA’s significance and, while the level of harm is at the lower end of less than substantial, great weight is attributed to it in arriving at my decision. No specific public benefits have been put to me which could be weighed against this harm and though some local economic benefit may have been derived from the installation of the fence through the purchase of materials and labour, these public benefits are very limited and do not outweigh the less than substantial harm to the CA that I have identified.

[name] note the appellant’s position that the fence may provide increased privacy as well as improved security for their children relative to the approved scheme, I do not consider these personal circumstances to be sufficient justification to outweigh the harm I have identified and they are, regardless, private matters which do not amount to public benefits relevant to this appeal.

The appellant has drawn my attention to other front boundaries on [address]. The opposing boundaries are not comparable to the development at the appeal site as they are wholly composed of brick and appear to be original boundaries. The boarding at [address] was not in-situ at the time of my site visit and from the evidence before me appeared to be a temporary measure whilst construction was in progress at this property. In respect of [address], it is a significant distance from the appeal site and in a different visual context and therefore is not directly comparable with the appeal proposal.

I note that the boundary along [address] has been planted with a hedge and which may have contributed to the ‘greening up’ of this location. I note that the appellant states that this arrangement would not be suitable for the boundary facing [address]. There is no dispute over this boundary treatment, and it did not form part of the appeal scheme. Its presence is not a matter which weighs in favour of allowing the appeal and does not lead me to an alternative conclusion on this main issue.

For the reasons set out above, the development does not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Highgate Village Conservation Area. Accordingly, the development conflicts with Policies D1 and D2 of the Camden Local Plan (2017) as well as Policies DH2 and DH6 of the Highgate Neighbourhood Plan (2017) which, together, seek to secure high quality design which respects local context and character and, within conservation areas, preserves or where possible enhances the character and appearance of the area. I have concluded against Policy D2 as it is a relevant heritage policy within the development plan.

The development does not accord with the development plan as a whole and material considerations, including public benefits, do not require this decision to be made other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above the appeal is dismissed.