Appeal 3319864

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the replacement of front boundary wall and sliding vehicular gate at Apsleys, [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, ref: 22/02808/FULL6, dated 14 July 2022, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin no later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plan: 5692-22-PL001 P3.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing boundary treatment.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The description in the banner heading above is taken from the planning application form. For the purposes of this decision, and in the interest of preciseness, I have used the description given on the decision notice and the appeal form.

The effect of the proposal on highway safety with specific regard to the free flow of traffic, cyclists and pedestrians.

The appeal site, like many surrounding properties, forms a large, detached dwelling adjacent to but set back from [address]. During my site visit I observed speed bumps along this section of [address] with vehicle speeds appearing commensurate with its residential location. [name] recognise that my site visit represents a snapshot in time, I have not been presented with any evidence to contradict this. The road curves gently at the entrance to the appeal site with good visibility provided in both directions when exiting onto [address]. Furthermore, the appeal site entrance is visible by motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians at a modest distance from both directions along the highway. Other gated entrances adjoining the highway were present within the area, most notably at No [address].

A substantial parking area is located to the front of the appeal dwelling with a partly damaged wall adjoining the boundary with the highway. Photographs within the Design and [name] accompanying the original application depict a wall and low vehicular gate along the boundary with [address] providing access. The Council describe the proposal as the replacement of the front boundary wall and sliding vehicular gate, raising no concerns regarding the original wall and gates’ lawfulness. There is no evidence before me to suggest that the original boundary wall and sliding gate were not lawful. As such, there is a greater than theoretical possibility that should planning permission be refused, the original wall and sliding gate would be repaired and reinstated.

In any event, the proposal would be similar to the original boundary wall and sliding gate which it would replace, with the exception being an increase in width of the access by approximately 0.8 metres and an increase in the height of the sliding gate to match that of the existing boundary wall. Given their similarities, the proposal would be no more harmful to highway safety than the original arrangement. In any case, the limited vehicle speeds and more than adequate visibility of the appeal site entrance along this section of [address] means that any delay in vehicles entering the appeal site would be unlikely to have an unacceptable impact on highway safety or the road network by disrupting the free flow of traffic, cyclists or pedestrians.

The proposal would not therefore have an unacceptable impact on highway safety. It would therefore accord with Policy 32 of the London Borough of Bromley Local Plan (2019) which requires new development to not significantly adversely affect road safety.

Other than the standard time limit condition, it is necessary to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plan for certainty. In the interests of the character and appearance of the area, a condition relating to materials to match that of the existing boundary treatment is also necessary.

For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme would comply with the development plan. As such, I recommend it be allowed, subject to the conditions set out.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s recommendation and on that basis I allow the appeal.