Appeal 6000253

The appeal is allowed, and the details submitted pursuant to condition No 3 (a) attached to planning permission [name]/24/01026/FULL1 granted on 3 June 2024, in accordance with the application [name]/24/01026/COND1 dated 31 October 2024 and the details submitted with it, are approved.

Notwithstanding the address given on the application form, I have taken the address of the appeal site from the original decision notice in the interests of consistency.

The Council have confirmed that with regards to the details submitted under condition 3 (a), the matter in dispute relates only to the external door and window details. All other details relating to roof cladding, wall facing materials and cladding, decorative features, rainwater goods and paving are considered acceptable to discharge the requirements of the condition. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

The proposed windows and doors, the subject of this appeal, have been installed.

Therefore, the main issue in this appeal is whether the fenestration and external door details submitted pursuant to condition No 3 (a) preserve the setting of the listed buildings known as The Old Palace and the [name] of [name] (The Folly).

The Old Palace, is a [name] listed red brick mansion dating back to the eighteenth century. It was built on the site of an earlier medieval manor house occupied by the Bishops of Rochester. The Folly is a [name] listed building with Norman style detailing located to the south west of The Old Palace. It is thought to have been constructed in the mid 1860’s using some of the stone from the former medieval manor. Insofar as it relates to this appeal, The Old Palace and The Folly derive significance from their architectural and historic interest.

Both buildings are located within extensive grounds now known as Bromley Palace Park (the Park). The grounds were landscaped in the 1860’s when The Old Palace was occupied as a private dwelling. It features mature specimen trees and other listed structures such as an icehouse and ha-ha, together with The Folly. It is from this extensive landscaped parkland that The Old Palace and The Folly can be experienced and therefore this setting contributes positively to their significance.

The appeal site comprises of two, three-storey buildings. The buildings are almost identical, each comprising three wings in a ‘Y’ shaped footprint. Constructed of brown brick, each building has expansive fenestration. I understand these openings were originally metal framed, with some later replacement UPVC frames. The two buildings were constructed in the south west corner of the Park in the 1960’s.

There is no dispute between the parties that the appeal site lies within the setting of The Old Palace and The Folly and I see no reason to depart from this view. However, the appeal buildings, are a noticeably modern incursion. Their style, mass and materials of construction result in fairly unremarkable buildings which do not seek to compete with the fine detail and design of The Old Palace. Consequently, they make a minimal and neutral to negative contribution to the setting of the listed buildings.

There is some intervisibility between The Old Palace and the appeal buildings. However, there are a number of substantial mature trees in the intervening Park. The Old Palace is on slightly elevated ground and has been extended by way of twentieth century wings which protrude beyond the historic façade. I saw that these contained UPVC window frames. It is one of these wings that lies closest to the appeal site and further interrupts the way that the historic part of the listed building can be appreciated from the appeal site.

The doors and windows which have been installed on the appeal buildings comprise of UPVC units finished in anthracite. I accept that replacement UPVC windows can rarely match the sections, profiles and proportions of historic joinery, and that their use may not be appropriate in a sensitive setting. Indeed, from the evidence before me, the replacement windows and doors appear to have a thicker profile with a more chunky appearance and a smooth finish.

However, in this instance, the windows have been installed in mid-twentieth century buildings whose materials of construction and design are inherently modern. The building is clearly of a different character and appearance to The Old Palace. The brown brick and anthracite fenestration means that the building sits recessively in the site and does not seek to compete with the historic mansion.

The Folly is located in a wooded area on the entrance approach to the appeal buildings. [name] is viewed together with the appeal buildings, the replacement windows and doors do not affect the appreciation and understanding of The Folly as an ornamental feature in the landscaped gardens of The Old Palace.

I have had special regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of the listed buildings in accordance with Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) and have given great weight to the conservation of the designated heritage assets as required by Paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the installation of the windows and doors the subject of this appeal, does not affect the way in which either of the designated heritage assets are appreciated. The effect on the significance of The Old Palace and The Folly is therefore a neutral one and their settings are preserved.

Accordingly, no conflict arises with Policies D3 and HC1 of The London Plan, adopted March 2021 and Policies 4, 37 and 38 of the Bromley Local Plan adopted January 2019 which seek high quality design, which complements the quality of the surrounding area and preserves the special interest of listed buildings and their setting.

Although not referred to by the Council, the appellant’s submissions refer to other listed structures within the Bromley Palace Park. These include a ha-ha, icehouse and Pulmanite waterfall and fernery which are all ornamental features in the landscaped gardens of The Old Palace. However, for the reasons set out above and from the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the appeal development has a neutral effect on the way in which these assets are appreciated and that their setting is preserved.

I have considered the argument that the grant of planning permission would set a precedent for the use of UPVC elsewhere in the wider site area. However, each application and appeal must be determined on its own individual merits, and a generalised concern of this nature would not in itself justify withholding approval in this case.

For the reasons set out above, the appeal should succeed.