Appeal 6000033

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for driveway to be paved. New entrance pillars with electric gates/hedging. Fences to be replaced with brick walls and patio works to the rear with raised steps to terrace areas at [site address] in accordance with the terms of application [name]/24/02425/FULL6, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location plan (undated); ASHTON_02 Block site plan, dated 8 July 2024; ASHTON_04 Proposed floor plans, dated 8 July 2024; ASHTON_06 Proposed elevations, dated 9 July 2024; and P_SIL_02_GA General Arrangement Front, dated 8 January 2024.

No development shall commence until there shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority, a scheme of landscaping and a timetable for its implementation. The scheme shall include but not be limited to, the planting of a hedge along the northern boundary with [site address] as shown on drawing number ASHTON_02 dated 8 July 2024. This shall include the quantity, size, species, and positions or density of all plants. All planting comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in accordance with the approved timetable for implementation and any plants which within five years die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species.

No development shall commence until there shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority, details of a surface water drainage scheme to prevent the discharge of surface water on to [site address] , together with a timetable for its provision and implementation. The drainage system shall be completed in accordance with the approved details and timetable and shall be retained permanently thereafter.

I have taken the description of the proposed development from the Council’s decision notice as it more succinctly describes the proposal than the one provided on the planning application form.

The appeal proposals include works to the patio at the rear of the property including raised steps to terrace areas, which do not form part of the Council’s reason for refusal. The Council’s officer report does not identify any conflict with development plan policy in these respects. Accordingly, the main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed pillars and gates on the character and appearance of the Chislehurst Conservation Area (CA).

Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (‘the Act’) requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area. This is reflected in Policy 41 of the Bromley Local Plan, adopted January 2019 (LP), which says that proposals in a conservation area will need to preserve and enhance its characteristics and appearance.

I have also had regard to Paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which makes it clear that when considering the impact of a proposal on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The designated heritage asset in this instance is the CA.

The CA has a wooded, semi-rural character. Residential development in Chislehurst is characterised by spacious suburban development with the ideals of the [name] and the aesthetics of the Arts and Crafts movement. The layout of streets and plots and the siting of buildings reinforce this character, such as the use of curving tree-lined streets reflective of rural lanes.

The CA covers a large area and has therefore been broken down into several ‘character sub-units’1. [site address] is located in sub-unit 4 and is noted to be a residential street containing a number of locally listed properties by Arts and Crafts architects. I saw that it was a street characterised by good size houses, in large plots set back from the road. Rather than displaying the ‘open character’ referred to by the Council, I found [site address] to have a verdant and enclosed feel as a result of the numerous street trees, boundary walls and hedges. The significance of the CA is therefore derived from a concentration of Arts and Crafts properties in a semi-rural setting.

Ashton is a large, detached house set in its own grounds. Designed by the notable Arts and Crafts architect [name], it was constructed in 1887 and comprises 1 As set out in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance for Chislehurst Conservation Area adopted June 1999 an asymmetrical two and a half storey Arts and Crafts house on the south side of [site address] . The property gains significance from its historic and architectural interest. With mature trees and hedge planting, the appeal property contributes positively to the significance of the CA as a whole.

The appeal site is largely enclosed by a substantial hedge along its northern boundary with [site address] , consistent with a number of properties in [site address] . However, I also saw that many of the properties, including those displaying Arts and Crafts aesthetics, had brick walls and pillars with hedge planting.

The appeal proposal consisting of the erection of walls, pillars, gates and the planting of hedging would enclose the site in much the same way as it is now. The submitted drawings indicate that the existing trees would be retained. I therefore find that the appeal proposal would conserve the verdant and enclosed feel of [site address] which I identified above and the effect on the significance of the CA as a whole would be a neutral one in this instance.

Accordingly, there would be no harm to the historic and architectural integrity of the non-designated heritage asset nor the character and appearance of the CA. In this instance the significance of the heritage asset would be preserved, and the effect of the proposed development would be a neutral one. As such, I find no conflict with Policies 37 and 41 of the LP which seek a high standard of design and layout which preserve and enhance the characteristics and appearance of the CA.

Although not a reason for refusal, the Council’s Officer report refers to the installation of the gates resulting in vehicles having to stop on the highway, leading to disturbance and congestion. I saw that [site address] was lightly trafficked, even at school pick up time. The proposed development relates to a single dwelling and would not lead to harmful levels of disturbance or congestion. For this reason, I also find it unnecessary to require that any remote-control fob for the electric gates is effective up to a distance of 200 metres from the gate’s antenna.

I have had regard to the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance and the conditions provided by the Council. I have also sought comments from the main parties on conditions which are necessary but have not been put forward in the submissions, including those which are pre-commencement conditions.

In addition to the standard time condition, it is necessary to specify the approved plans in the interests of certainty. A condition requiring a detailed planting scheme for the hedge is necessary to preserve the character and appearance of the CA and it is necessary to attach a condition to secure surface water drainage details to ensure that surface water from the appeal site does not drain onto [site address] . Both of these must necessarily apply before any development is commenced. The appellants have given their consent in writing that these pre-commencement conditions may be imposed.

It is not necessary to attach conditions requiring the provision of parking and turning areas on site as these already exist and are unaffected by the proposed development. It is also not necessary to attach a condition to ensure that no loose materials are used for the hard surfacing of the parking and turning area as the plans indicate that the existing gravel surfacing would be replaced by porous sett paviours.

The proposed development would adhere to the development plan and there are no material considerations that outweigh this finding. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.