Appeal 6000245

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the non-designated heritage asset forming part of [site address] , existing trees within the site, and the surrounding area; • the effect on the living conditions of No 19 [site address] and No 8 [name], with particular regard to outlook and artificial light; and • the effect on highway safety in the surrounding area.

The original building within the appeal site, formally known as [name], was built in the late 1880s as a [name] suburban mansion. [site address] moved to the site in the late 1950s, and the school has since expanded substantially. It is now an independent coeducation day facility with a nursery, prep school, senior school and sixth form, catering to students from age 3 to 18. Part of the building is locally listed, and the main parties agree that this forms a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA). Its siting tilts away to the northwest from [site address] and it is surrounded by detached residential properties.

From what I have seen and read, the significance of this NDHA is derived from its ornate and distinctive period features, including a prominent cupola on the corner elevation facing [site address] , a first-floor oriel window above the main stepped entrance door arch, decorative stained glass windows, mullions and surrounds, along with its relatively spacious setting at some distance away from neighbouring dwellings and surrounded by large trees.

Construction of housing on its former parkland and gardens has eroded much of its setting. More recent various school extensions obstruct many of the original facades and considerably impact appreciation of the NDHA, namely along [address]. Whilst the vehicle parking area is adjacent to the NDHA, this allows for its original built form to still be clearly appreciable along [site address] . The existing extended built form protruding beyond the NDHA’s northwest elevation is mainly set back from this historic fabric. The NDHA can therefore still be appreciated as a prominent and aesthetically pleasing historic local landmark.

The appeal proposal would form a notable addition when viewed from [site address] . Subservience to the existing building is however not an explicit requirement of the Council’s Local Plan (LP) (adopted 2019). Although some parts of the proposed brick elevations are not broken up by fenestration detail, these areas are limited relative to the overall proposal, and the gable facing [site address] would mirror the proportions of the existing school building.

The extension would be contemporary in appearance, most notably the glazed entrance atrium with flat roof attaching to the NDHA. This is a deliberate design approach to avoid what is termed as an insincere pastiche or imitation. Whilst the atrium feature would obscure some of the northwest elevation historic fabric, this would be set back from the oriel window, and its structural design would limit destruction of or damage to the original fenestration. This affected elevation is set back from the elevations nearer [site address] , which include the cupola. This allows for the NDHA to retain much of its focal point status and function.

The extent of proposed westward projection would however significantly diminish the last vestige of the NDHA’s spaciousness, most notably experienced travelling westbound along [site address] and despite the lower roof height relative to the NDHA. The extent of projection would also require the removal of three trees that are subject of Tree Preservation Orders. Such loss would not have an adverse visual impact when viewed from the [name] cul-de-sac. In particular, views of the yew tree proposed for removal1 are limited.

However, there are notable views of the taller holly (T21) and sycamore (T22) trees proposed for removal from along [site address] , and this landscape setting contributes to the spaciousness and distinctiveness of the NDHA. Therefore, notwithstanding the low quality grading of these trees by the appropriately qualified [name] author, I have found these two trees to be of significant importance to the visual amenity of the appeal site and the surrounding area.

New areas of soft landscaping are proposed, comprising a mix of native species and ten small urban trees2, most notably along some of the [site address] frontage and the route to the proposed new school entrance. However, there is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that T21 and T22 would, in their current condition, be unlikely to survive on site and contribute to visual amenity for many years.

There are limited details before me of the precise specification and size of the proposed new trees. Given this, and the indicative planting locations near existing buildings and hardstanding areas, there is substantial doubt as to whether the new 1 Referenced as T20 within the appellant’s commissioned [name]. 2 As indicated in the appellant’s commissioned [name]. trees would sufficiently grow to make a similar contribution to the visual amenity of the site and surrounding area as the trees that would be lost.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposal would harm the character, appearance and significance of the NDHA, its setting, and the surrounding area. The scheme thus conflicts with [name] 37 and 39, and London Plan Policies D3 and HC1. These policies require, amongst other things, extensions to existing buildings to complement the proportion and layout of adjacent areas, to positively contribute to the existing street scene and landscape, to conserve and be sympathetic to the character, appearance and significance of the extended locally listed building, and to respect its setting and appreciation within its surroundings.

The proposal also conflicts with LP Policy 73 and London Plan Policy G7. These policies require, amongst other things, development proposals to take particular account of existing trees that are considered desirable to be retained, and provide suitable and adequate replacement planting based on the existing value of the benefits of the trees removed.

The main parties agree that the proposal would not have an unacceptable effect on overshadowing of the nearest neighbouring properties. Based on what I observed during my site visit and the findings of the daylight, sunlight and overshadowing report commissioned by the appellant, I have no reason to disagree.

Nearest properties include No 19 [site address] , comprising a detached dwelling with two floors. The proposed extension would be sited alongside a significant proportion of this neighbour’s long rear garden side boundary, at close proximity and with a substantial two storey flat roof form. This would project considerably above the boundary fencing. Whilst there are also trees and hedgerow within No 19 along the side boundary, the extension would nonetheless appear as conspicuous and substantial built form that would have a dominating and overbearing effect when viewed from No 19’s rear elevation windows and garden.

The proposal would therefore unacceptably harm the living conditions of No 19 in respect of outlook. The scheme thus conflicts with LP Policy 37 and London Plan D3 insofar as these policies require development to respect the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring buildings, provide healthy environments and deliver appropriate outlook.

It is put to me that the external lighting affixed to the proposed extension would have minimal impact on nearby dwellings. However, as indicated in [name] (Site Plan indicating [name]) of the appellant’s [name] document, the illuminance (lx) of the proposed lighting would exceed the relevant guidance published by the Institute of Lighting Professionals3.

Applying this guidance, the proposal site is within suburban surroundings (Zone E3). Table 3 of this guidance indicates that in such a zone, light intrusion to nearby dwellings should not exceed 10lx before curfew4. I interpret this as including private garden areas. I therefore conclude that the proposal would unacceptably harm the living conditions of No 19 in terms of artificial light intrusion in to its rear garden. 3 Guidance Note 01/21 - The Reduction of [name] (published 2021). 4 Described in Guidance Note 01/21 as the time after which stricter requirements for the control of obtrusive light will apply, and is often a condition of use of lighting applied by the planning decision maker. The scheme is thus contrary to LP Policy 122 which requires lighting in new development to be at an appropriate level so as to minimise impact on amenity whilst ensuring safe and secure places.

The tree loss proposed would expose some views of the extension’s northwest elevation windows from No 19’s rear garden. However, had I been minded to allow the appeal, I am satisfied that adverse artificial light impacts could be avoided by means of a planning condition controlling the hours in which the extension’s internal lighting is operational.

Turning to the effects on the other nearby detached dwelling of No 8 [name], the proposed external lighting affixed to the extension would not face towards this neighbouring site. Whilst the northern section of the extension would project closer to this neighbour’s side boundary, this dwelling contains no side elevation windows facing the proposal. The extension would also be notably set away from No 8’s rear garden. The appeal scheme would therefore not harm the living conditions of this neighbour in terms of outlook and artificial light.

LP Policy 30 sets out that parking for non-residential development types is to be provided at levels set out in London Plan Table 6.2. The current adopted London Plan (2021) however post-dates the 2019 LP, and it does not provide minimum or maximum parking standards for schools or other educational facilities. Conflict with LP Policy 30 has thus not been demonstrated in this respect.

Paragraph 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) however sets out, amongst other things, that transport issues should be considered by development proposals, using a vision-led approach to identify transport solutions that deliver well-designed and sustainable places. LP Policy 32 also requires consideration of the potential impact of development on road safety to ensure that it is not significantly adversely affected.

Both main parties state that the appeal site lies in an area with a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) rating of 2. The Transport Statement (TS) commissioned by the appellant advises that this rating was sourced from the website “www.webptals.org.uk”. However, as shown on Transport for London’s (TfL’s) web-based connectivity assessment toolkit (Webcat 3.0), the appeal site is within a PTAL rating area of 1b.

The London Plan advises that a limitation of PTAL ratings is that they only reflect access to the public transport network, but not the opportunities and services reachable through the network. I found the site to be within reasonable walking distance to bus stops along [address] providing routes towards Eltham, Bromley and [name], and this road is within a PTAL 2 rated area as shown on [name] 3.0. The site is also within reasonable walking distance from Elmstead Woods National Rail station, which is on the south eastern main line.

The TS states that there 485 pupils at the school, although the TS is dated April

The appellant’s supporting document titled “Business Case for growth of [address] [name]” states that the school has 109 staff members, and provides no FTE figure, although the TS refers to 124 staff and an FTE figure of 92, of which 70 are non-teaching staff.

The proposed extension includes three classrooms, one of which would involve relocating two existing science labs into a specialist science teaching classroom to accommodate the senior school students. The current science labs would be converted into larger general classrooms to accommodate up to 20 students in a senior class. I am told that some of the existing classrooms within the historic building are too small to fit a class size of 17.

Upon my overall reading of the appeal scheme before me, it consists of relocation of classrooms as well as provision of new classrooms. It is put to me that the proposal is not about growth in student or staff numbers, but rather seeks to further enhance the teaching environment and meet the school’s wellbeing strategy.

However, given the lack of full plan detail before me covering all existing and proposed floorspace within the existing building, I cannot discount the possibility of some overall increase in classroom pupil capacity in quantitative terms. I must however also bear in mind that there could also be some inevitable year-to-year natural fluctuation in student and staff figures.

At the time of my site visit, there were a total of 14 marked vehicle parking spaces served by the vehicular access off [site address] , including one disabled access space. The appeal proposal would provide three spaces. Therefore, based on my site observations, the proposal would result in the loss of 11 vehicle parking spaces, although the existing disabled access space provision would be retained.

I also noted two minibuses parked within the existing marked spaces. The appellant’s Statement of Case however advises that the remaining parking spaces would be retained for the school’s minibuses. On this basis, apart from the disabled access space, there would be no staff or visitor parking within the appeal site.

I accept that the proposed reduction of staff car parking spaces would remove vehicles entering and leaving the appeal site, lowering the potential for vehicle and pedestrian conflicts, especially during school drop-off and collection times. However, the Travel Plan data provided within the TS nonetheless indicates that a substantial number of students and staff travel by car. This reflects what I observed during my site visit undertaken during part of the school morning drop-off time.

Whilst the keep clear markings adjacent the school’s vehicular entrances were adhered to, there were many vehicles parked on roads in the school’s vicinity that appeared to relate to the school drop-off period. This led to instances of moving vehicles not being able to pass each other at the same time when travelling on the highway, due to reduced carriageway widths caused by the parking.

Whilst the nearby footway network is well segregated by grass verges, many vehicles were parked near road junctions and private residential driveways. This creates highway safety risks in terms of reduced visibility and carriageway widths. A further increase in pupil numbers could potentially exacerbate highway safety risk in these respects, although I noted that on-street parking levels noticeably decreased after the drop-off period. The roads near to the school are also mainly subject to a no waiting restriction between 11am and 12 noon Mondays to Fridays.

However, as purported by nearby interested parties, the proposed reduction of on-site parking spaces could also lead to the possibility of staff vehicle parking near to the school entrance after the cessation of the waiting restriction and during the late afternoon pick up period. The TS indicates that the end of the school day tends to be busier than the start, as more groups of pupils leave school at the same time when compared to the more staggered drop-off time periods.

The school day in the main finishes before the typical highway PM peak hour of 5pm to 6pm. However, the proposed extension and resultant loss of on-site parking could nonetheless lead to additional parked vehicles near to the appeal site before and during pick-up time when compared to the existing situation.

I also observed that the nearby local area of commercial premises at the [address] and [address] junction is served by a very limited area of unrestricted highway parking space in its vicinity. Within that area, I observed the same three vehicles parked before and after the morning school drop-off period. Whilst it is not possible to ascertain the source of such parking, this nonetheless indicates an area of existing parking stress within short walking distance to the appeal site.

In this context and despite the proximity to bus and rail facilities, I envisage that the proposed extension and on-site parking loss could lead to even greater pressures on local parking capacity. This would adversely impact access to the local commercial premises for less mobile customers.

Although this impact would be limited to the daily one-hour waiting restriction, the proposal could lead to increased competition for spaces between the school and the abovementioned commercial premises during school drop-off and pick-up periods. This could also increase the likelihood of parking near junctions and on double yellow lines, although that would be matter for the Council to enforce against where appropriate.

My visit to the area surrounding the school was only a snapshot in time and during a morning period. However, my above observations indicate that the proposed extension, necessitating loss of on-site vehicle spaces, would likely lead to a significantly adverse impact on the highway safety of the surrounding area. I do not view the lack of officially recorded vehicle accidents in the vicinity of the appeal site in recent years as a reliable indicator of highway safety, as only crashes which involve personal injuries are recorded by the police.

The Council refused planning permission in November 2024 for change of use of a tennis court to provide a car park together with the formation of an access route at the nearby site known as [name] & Country Club, off [address]. That refused scheme sought to provide parking spaces within walking distance of the appeal site to mitigate against the loss of parking proposed. The school has access to the sports facilities and parking spaces within that site. However, in the absence of a revised or updated scheme before me, the abovementioned site does not mitigate the proposed loss of parking within the appeal site.

LP Policy 30 also requires developments to meet minimum cycle parking standards as per London Plan Table 6.3. These standards are superseded by the current London Plan Table 10.2, which require a minimum of 1 long-stay cycle space per 8 full time equivalent (FTE) staff, 1 long-stay space per 8 students, and 1 short-stay space per 100 students. Cycle parking within the appeal site would remain as existing, which I saw as comprising six cycle stands. This provision is very limited relative to the school’s existing size, and therefore does not provides sufficient mitigation for the highway safety impact that I have identified.

There is also a small area within the appeal site for the parking of scooters. It is put to me that the school is planning to install some scooter parking pods for a more efficient use of the current parking area. However, no specific scheme for this is before to be considered as mitigation.

The two mini-bus services to be retained provide a return service five days per week for pupils from as far afield as Beckenham and the Dartford area. The capacity of this service however appears limited relative to the overall pupil amount, and thus also does not mitigate the identified adverse highway safety impacts.

I am also told that the school has secured agreement to rent 24 nearby driveways during school times. The appellant contends that this suggests an abundance of availability of this parking solution that would ensure no loss in car parking spaces, and that parking space availability within close proximity of the school would in fact increase. It is therefore put to me that should any parties who have currently agreed to let their driveway during school-hours choose to cease their rental agreement, there should be sufficient excess spaces to absorb such loss.

However, I do not view the above as an adequate long-term arrangement to mitigate the impact arising from the proposed parking loss within the appeal site. The precise existing rental locations are not before me and even if there would be a steady abundance of overall rental supply in the area, this is not a manner that could be secured in perpetuity and reliably enforced, by means of planning condition or legal mechanism, in a sufficiently precise or reasonable manner.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed school extension and resultant loss of on-site vehicle parking would likely lead to a significantly adverse and unacceptable highway safety impact in the surrounding area. The scheme thus conflicts with LP Policy 32 in this respect. There is also conflict London Plan Policy T4 insofar as it requires development to not increase road danger and where appropriate, to mitigate adverse transport impacts.

The third reason for refusal also cites conflict with London Plan Policy T3. For decision making, this policy seeks to safeguard existing land and buildings used for public transport, active travel or related support functions. It also states that development proposals should support capacity, connectivity and other improvements to the bus network and ensure it can operate efficiently to, from and within developments, giving priority to buses and supporting infrastructure as needed. The submitted evidence before me however does not demonstrate conflict with this policy.

The appeal site is within a built-up area of the Borough, and LP Policy 27 supports choice in education for parents and young people, and provision of an appropriate range of educational facilities to cater for lifelong learning across the spectrum. LP Policy 28 supports proposals for new educational facilities which meet local need, looking first at opportunities to maximise the use of existing [name]. There is thus no in-principle objection to the appeal proposal.

However, I have found conflict with [name] 32, 37, 39 and 73 and 122, and London Plan Policies D3, G7, HC1 and T4. This extent of policy conflict amounts to conflict with the development plan as a whole.

The school has a history of being top performing, which has resulted in waiting lists for year 7 and nursery places on account of the high-quality education on offer, the small class sizes, and the ability to support students individually. The school intends to maintain and improve this standard in both the short and long term. Changes in its curriculum necessitate a specialist science lab and the existing footprint of the site does not allow for a classroom large enough to accommodate this, including ventilation and chemical storage requirements.

There is also growing demand for sixth form places, and the appeal proposal includes a new sixth form centre with areas for socialising and private study. I am also told that the current sixth form common room and study area is located at the top of the historic building in its roof space, along with the art room and textiles room, with narrow staired access.

The appeal scheme would provide a new main entrance for the school to redirect the flow of visitors and students, guiding them to enter and leave the premises in a more controllable and safe manner, passing through a new reception area. This includes a welcoming entrance space and atrium, and ancillary office and storage space. The library and study space area above the new entrance would serve multiple purposes, including breakout spaces for students to work and a circulation area, fostering a dynamic environment for learning and collaboration.

The scheme would provide larger classrooms and an IT suite. The overall layout would also create other working, practical and socialising spaces. Lift access would be provided along with additional staff and student toilets, including an accessible unit near the existing games area. The development would also provide a larger catering kitchen for the dining hall. The existing dining hall and staff room are not big enough for the existing student and staff numbers. I am also told that the existing staff working area is limited to one designated room with eight computers.

Framework paragraph 216 states that in weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the

Framework paragraph 100 seeks a proactive, positive and collaborative approach to ensure a sufficient choice of early years, school and post-16 places are available to meet the needs of existing and new communities, and to widen choice in education. This also directs me to give great weight to the need to expand or alter early years, schools and post-16 facilities.

The proposal would also include a bio-solar green roof with PV panels and planting, and air source heat pumps, to achieve a carbon emission reduction of 54.8% from the existing situation. Moderate weight is afforded to this environmental benefit. Taking a balanced judgement, the identified harm to the NDHA would be outweighed by all the abovementioned benefits.

However, the extension would necessitate the loss of trees that I have found to be of significant importance to the visual amenity of the appeal site and the surrounding area. I also envisage that the scheme would unacceptably harm the living conditions of the nearby residential properties of No 19 [site address] and No 8 [name], and would unacceptably impact highway safety in the surrounding area. The extent of these harms leads me to conclude that the appeal scheme would not achieve an overall well-designed place or a sustainable form of development as identified by the Framework.

The Design and [name] outlines how the appeal scheme has sought to address the Council’s pre-application advice. This also explores other locations within the appeal site for development. The focus is however on various potential extension locations. The potential for remodelling of existing footprint or floorspace to provide for at least some of the school’s needs and aspirations is not explored in a detailed manner. Given this along with the absence of full existing and proposed floorplan details, I am not persuaded that the appeal scheme is the only or least harmful solution to meet the school’s current needs and aspirations.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole. Material considerations before me, including the Framework, do not indicate that a decision should be made otherwise than in accordance with it. The appeal is therefore dismissed.