Appeal 6000251

The appeal is dismissed.

The development appears to have already taken place generally in accordance with the submitted plans. Therefore, I have considered the appeal based on what has taken place, as well as the plans before me.

The main issues relevant to this appeal are: the effect of the development upon the character and appearance of the area; and the effect of the development upon highway safety.

The appeal property is a semi-detached dwelling situated in a predominantly residential area. Properties along the road are generally set back behind front gardens or driveways, contributing to a spacious and open streetscape. The built form comprises a mix of single and two-storey dwellings, with boundary treatments typically consisting of low brick walls, metal railings and hedgerows. This consistent setback and modest boundary scale positively contributes to the character and appearance of the area.

The boundary wall and gate erected at the appeal site are noticeably taller and bulkier than those on adjacent properties and others along the street. Based on the submitted evidence the previously boundary walls on site were similarly sized to those either side of the site. The as built pillars are particularly substantial, and the aluminium panels between them, along with the similarly designed gate, create a solid and enclosing frontage. While the pillars themselves allow limited views, the panels significantly reduce openness, resulting in a visually dominant and enclosed appearance. The limited gaps between the panels does not overcome this.

The white render applied to the walls matches the host dwelling and is not out of character within the local context, where both brick and rendered finishes are present.

However, the overall scale, siting and materials of the wall, pillars and gate appear visually intrusive and overbearing. They diminish the open character of the street and contrast sharply with the prevailing boundary treatments and appears incongruous within the street scene. Whilst the development is not disproportionate in scale to the house itself, and the materials and colours are natural this does not overcome this above concern.

Reference has been made to other boundary treatments nearby, but many are located on roads with differing characteristics. Those on Valley Road for example are generally less imposing and more permeable, often incorporating iron railings that maintain visual openness. Unlike hedges, which can be trimmed to reduce height, the solid construction of the appeal site’s boundary is permanent and contributes more significantly to a sense of enclosure. The wall related to [address] surrounds a car park associated with an apartment block which may have justified the taller boundary wall in the interest of highway safety or security. Furthermore, this wall is an outlier on the street where the majority of boundary walls are smaller in scale as described above. Where taller pillars and metal railings have been erected these are typically not as bulky as what have been built at the appeal site. I have limited evidence regarding the planning history for the other sites. As such, I do not know the circumstances or the merits of those cases. Without such information, I cannot determine the reasoning why the Council granted permission for them, or even if the Council did grant permission for them.

Therefore, for the reasons given above the development harms the character and appearance of the area and conflicts with Policy 37 of the Bromley Local Plan (LP) and Policy D3 of London Plan. These seek, amongst other matters, to ensure developments respond to local context, preserving and enhancing the existing qualities of the borough’s townscape, landscape, and streetscape character.

The submitted plans do not demonstrate that the visibility splays recommended by the Council’s Highways Officer can be achieved from the access point. These splays must remain unobstructed above 1 metre in height from the existing ground level. While the wall itself is below this threshold, the pillars and aluminium panels exceed it. The narrow gaps between the panels offer limited visibility, and combined with the height of the pillars, they are likely to obscure pedestrians, particularly children and wheelchair users, from drivers exiting the site. This concern is heightened by the constrained size of the driveway, which may necessitate reversing onto the highway. Based on the evidence the recommended visibility splays cannot be achieved, and it has not been demonstrated how alternatives, such as mirrors, would adequately address these concerns. The panels also restrict visibility for pedestrians and other road users approaching the driveway, increasing the risk of conflict, especially for vulnerable road users. Although the appellant notes limited pedestrian activity, the proximity of two schools suggests that children and other pedestrians do use the road.

The design of the boundary wall and gate in close proximity to the highway impairs visibility for all road users. The constrained dimensions of the driveway mean that vehicles would be unlikely to turn around within the site to exit in a forward gear and this arrangement compounded by the limited visibility would increase the risk of conflict between vehicles and pedestrians. Consequently, the design and scale of the development fails to provide a safe and suitable access for all users and significantly adversely affects road safety.

In the appeal at [address], the Inspector found the replacement walls and gate to be similar in scale to the originals, unlike the current scheme. The case also involved concerns about vehicles overhanging the highway, whereas the present appeal relates to visibility issues. These material differences justify a different

The existence of similar gates and walls on nearby roads does not justify permitting development that compromises highway safety. The absence of recorded accidents does not equate to safety, and it has not been demonstrated that the development provides a safe and suitable access for all users.

Therefore, for the reasons given above the development harms highway safety. Consequently, the development would conflict with Policy 32 of the LP and Policies T2 and T4 of the London Plan insofar as they expect developments to ensure that road safety is not significantly adversely affected.

The development conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.