Appeal 3363954

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for erection of garage and 1.8m fence to front of site at [site address] , Bexleyheath [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00073/FUL, subject to the conditions set out in the attached schedule.

The main issues are the effect of the development on: • the character and appearance of the area; and • highway safety.

The appeal site is a private parking forecourt in front of a single-storey detached retail premises, positioned at the end of a two-storey terraced parade that includes ground-floor commercial uses and fronts an access road used for parking, which runs between [address] East and [address]. The site forms part of a neighbourhood centre comprising similar parades featuring open hardstanding aprons used for incidental parking and ancillary activities, including the sale of goods such as motor vehicles and horticultural products, and the siting of associated structures including a cabin and pergola.

Located on the periphery of the neighbourhood centre, the site’s western boundary adjoins a residential property where a high boundary wall provides a demarcation between the commercial and residential areas. The dwellings in this location are set back from the road, aligned with the parade, and incorporate open front parking. Some street-facing screening is present, including a prominent brick and railing boundary that fronts the property directly adjoining the site. A cantilever-style bus shelter abuts the site's southern boundary, subtly reducing its open and outward-facing character towards the street.

The proposal involves the construction of a detached, flat-roofed single garage on the forecourt. The garage, to be used for storage purposes, would feature grey composite cladding and a single door opening on its eastern elevation.

Additionally, a 1.8m high fence is proposed between the garage and the back of the footway along [address] East, behind where the bus shelter is located. The fence would extend along the site's front boundary before terminating at the eastern end of the proposed garage.

Although positioned in a prominent location, the proposed fence would not appear incongruous, as its height and position would align with the front boundary treatment of the adjacent residential property and would be seen as part of the established line of boundary screening within the street scene. It would also be partially screened by the bus shelter. Within this context, the fence would not detract from or harmfully disrupt the open frontage character of the wider parade.

Although the garage would be located in an uncharacteristic position, its modest scale and flat-roofed design would ensure it remains largely screened from the road by both the proposed fence, with the bus shelter positioned in front, and the adjacent side boundary wall. While it would be visible from the east within the [name], its placement at the far end of the parade frontage, together with visual enclosure to the rear provided by the boundary wall, planting, and residential properties beyond, would limit any sense of disruption to the established visual character of the area. It would not appear incongruous and from this location it would also be seen within the wider context of the Centre which contains other forward sited features and structures.

For these reasons I conclude the development would not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, it would comply with Policies SP5 and DP11 of the Bexley Local Plan and the Bexley Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2025) which seek to achieve high-quality and contextually appropriate designs.

The garage and fence would be positioned near the junction of the access road with [address] East, where the Council considers they would obstruct visibility for vehicles joining the highway. Visibility (to the right) is already constrained by the bus shelter and an adjoining light column resulting in drivers having to slowly edge forward to see past these features before entering the highway. On my site visit, I observed eastbound traffic on [address] East, travelling towards the site, slowing in proximity to the junction with [address] and the zebra crossing, positioned on a raised table just beyond. It appears likely that this represented typical driver behaviour, and that it assists in providing time for drivers approaching the site to see vehicles edging out of the access road. As the bus shelter sits forward of the proposed development, the existing visibility constraints would remain unchanged with the development not materially altering the situation.

For the reasons set out above I conclude that the development would not result in harm to highway safety. Accordingly, the development would comply with Policy T4 of the London Plan (2021) and Policies SP10 and DP24 of the Local Plan (2023) and the National Planning Policy Framework, which seek to uphold highway safety.

The conditions imposed are those which have been suggested by the Council with the exception of the requirement for matching materials which is unnecessary as the materials are specified on the plans and have not attracted any specific objection. In addition to the standard time condition, I have imposed a condition requiring the development to be carried out following the approved plan, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of certainty. While the stated use of the garage is for storage, its design could facilitate vehicle parking. As such I have imposed a condition requiring the provision of pedestrian visibility splays at the entrance to the garage. I have adapted the wording proposed by the Council to refer specifically to the garage rather than ‘car parking areas’. I have also identified where the splays should apply and specified a time when the condition should be complied with, without which the condition would be imprecise and potentially unenforceable. In the interests of safeguarding the character and appearance of the area and based on the role of the fence in screening the garage, I have also imposed a condition requiring the erection of the fence prior to the first use of the garage and its retention thereafter.

For the reasons given above I conclude the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not 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: 121/25/1000 [name].

Prior to the first use of the garage hereby permitted, the access to it shall be provided with those parts of 2.4m x 2.4m pedestrian visibility splays (to be measured outwards from either side of the garage door opening) which can be accommodated within the site in both directions. The pedestrian visibility splays shall be maintained free of all obstacles between heights of 0.6m and 2.0m above the level of the adjoining road.

The 1.8m fence hereby permitted shall be erected prior to the first use of the garage and shall thereafter be retained. End of Schedule