Appeal 6004672

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development proposed on the planning application form is extremely lengthy and includes detail and narrative that does not relate to the operative part of the development. The description of development on the Council’s decision notice was amended to that shown in the banner heading. This is clearer and more accurate than the description on the application form and this amended version was used by the appellant in their appeal form. I have therefore determined the appeal on the basis of the amended description.

Reference to “retrospective” in the description of the development proposed is not a form of development, therefore I have removed the reference to this in the banner heading above. While works have commenced on site, I have determined the appeal on the basis of the plans submitted with the planning application.

The main issues are: i. the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area; ii. the effect of the development on highway safety; and iii. whether sufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the development would not adversely affect [address] (No 35) with regards to surface water flooding.

In the vicinity of the appeal site, [address] is a residential street predominantly of two-storey terraced houses. The terraces are set back from the road with open front gardens or parking areas. Front boundary treatments, where provided, are typically low post and rail wooden fences. There is some hedging to the front boundary of the appeal site and No 35.

The front gardens on [address] provide an open separation between the road and dwellings which creates a spacious appearance to the street scene. The existing layout plan for the appeal site shows the site before work had taken place. It indicates a typical open frontage with a front boundary of either hedge or low timber post and rail fence that would likely have made a positive contribution to the character of the area, in keeping with its neighbours.

The appeal proposal includes a brick/block wall, with intermittent pillars to the front of the appeal site and along the edge of the front garden along [address]. The height to the top of the pillars is approximately 2.35m. The height of the wall between pillars has not been provided but the plans indicate that the wall would be approximately half the height of the pillars.

While some hedging would be retained at the front of the site the brick/block wall fronting the appeal site is a solid visual barrier that restricts views into and through the frontage of the appeal site, adversely affecting the open and spacious feel of the site and [address]. The form and materials of the proposal are not characteristic of boundary treatments in the area and appear prominent and incongruous in the street scene. The submitted plans do not confirm the material of the wall. The wall as constructed comprises grey blocks and buff mortar. These materials contrast negatively with the red brick that is the prevalent facing material of dwellings in [address]. Even if the wall were constructed of red brick, it would remain incongruous in the area.

The appellant contends that, with regard to boundary frontages, the wider area does not exhibit a consistency of form, and that the appeal proposal represents an enhancement of the visual amenities of the locality. As noted above I have observed consistency in the area within which the appeal sits with regard to open frontages.

Overall, I conclude that the development harms the character and appearance of the area and is therefore in conflict with Policy D3 of the London Plan 2021 and Policy DM10 of the Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames Local Development Framework Core Strategy (The Core Strategy). These policies require development to respond to, and contribute to, the existing character and distinctiveness of a place and have particular regard to the contribution that private front gardens make to the Borough’s suburban character and distinctive local context.

The officer’s report includes reference to a consultation response from the highway officer which includes a requirement that a driver leaving the site can see anything over 0.6m, primarily to prevent injury to children. This guidance is set out within the Council’s Vehicular Crossover Policy and Application Pack (VCPAP, 2024).

The appellant states that there are numerous vehicular accesses along [address], including an existing access at the site, and that highway users are conscious of their existence and have to exercise a degree of caution. The primary concern of the highway officer, and VCPAP, relates to visibility to small children, and it would be inappropriate to rely on small children exercising caution when walking on a footway approaching an access.

The appellant also notes that the dwelling generates a small number of vehicular movements and the cul-de-sac position of the site is such that vehicle movements and speeds on [address] in the vicinity of the access are low. This may be true but the requirement for a driver to be able to see an approaching child pedestrian is not related to vehicle numbers or speeds.

No visibility splay details have been submitted for the vehicular access, however there is a 2.35m high pillar immediately adjacent to the access and the adjacent wall would be in excess of 1m in height. Appropriate visibility splays are therefore not proposed, and consequently the development would have an adverse effect on highway safety.

A potential condition noted in the LPA questionnaire regarding visibility splays is acknowledged. However, this does not include a requirement for the splay to be free of obstruction from a height of 0.6m. For this reason, I am not of the view that it would satisfactorily address the safety concern.

I conclude that the proposal results in unacceptable impacts on highway safety, in conflict with Policy DM10 of the [name], which requires development not to have an unacceptable impact on highway safety. Policy DM9 of the [name], which relates to requirements for [name], parking provision and car club and electric vehicle infrastructure was referenced in the Council’s reason for refusal. However, by reason of the nature of development, this is not directly relevant to the scheme before me and was not determinative to this appeal.

The ground levels in the rear garden have been raised to reduce the gradient of the ground and retaining walls varying in height between approximately 0.67m and 1.14m are shown on the submitted plans. No details have been submitted by the appellant to demonstrate that the increased ground levels in the garden would not result in increased risk of surface water flooding to No 35.

The appellant considers that this can be addressed by a condition requiring submission of drainage details and, if necessary, any required mitigation measures. However, given that the works to the rear garden have been completed and in the absence of certainty that there is a deliverable drainage solution, such a condition is not appropriate.

Overall, I conclude that insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the development would not adversely affect No [address] with regards to surface water flooding. The proposal is therefore in conflict with Policy SI13 of the London Plan 2021 and Policies CS1 and DM4 of the [name] which require development to take account of increased flood risk and manage surface water run-off.

I acknowledge the appellant’s argument that the works have taken place in order to strengthen the security and privacy of their property. However, there is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that the scheme before me is the only way to achieve that. This matter has not led me to an alternative conclusion on

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.