Appeal 6000317

The appeal is dismissed.

I note from the appeal documentation and my site visit that the proposed development has been partially constructed. For the avoidance of doubt, this appeal decision only relates to the proposed development as shown on the submitted appeal plans.

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

The appeal site is situated in a primarily residential area, and consists of a detached dwelling with a large driveway and a rear garden. The site slopes downwards towards the site’s eastern boundary. Although exceptions exist, such as the front boundary wall with railings at [address], frontages in the area are predominantly open. Where built development along frontages exists, this largely consists of low walls. Hedges adjacent to the footway are common, which adds to the verdant nature of the area.

In marked contrast to this established aesthetic, due to its height and width the proposed front boundary wall would constitute a prominent, dominant, and incongruous feature in the street scene. Its harmful impact on the appearance of the area would be compounded by the proposed electric sliding gate, which would appear as a particularly wide structure in its context. Harm to the established character of the area would result.

The frontages to 124 and [address] mainly consist of fairly low walls with hedging atop. Due to the amount of built form proposed, the proposed development would appear much more strident in the street scene in comparison. A tall fence exists to the side of [address] (No 1), adjacent to the site. However, unlike the proposed development, which relates to a front driveway boundary treatment, the fence at No 1 mainly screens the rear and side garden of No 1. Otherwise, the frontage to No 1 is largely open. As these examples are not directly comparable with the proposed development, they do not change my findings on this main issue.

I therefore find that the proposed development would have an unacceptable and harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would conflict with parts a and b of Policy 37 of the Bromley Local Plan (adopted 2019) (Local Plan) which provide that, amongst other things, developments will be expected to be imaginative and attractive to look at, of a good architectural quality and should complement the scale, proportion, form, layout and materials of adjacent buildings and areas, and positively contribute to the existing street scene.

The size of the front driveway would provide enough turning space to enable a car to exit the site in a forward gear. I observed that, during the morning, numerous children were walking in the vicinity of the site towards the schools to the west of the site, with younger children being accompanied by adults. I observed a number of children walking past the site on the site’s side of the road. Although only a ‘snapshot’ in time, there is nothing before me to suggest that my observations were untypical during school terms.

The submitted plans state that the wall at the western end of the site1 would be approximately 1150 mm in height at the point where it abuts the footway. Due to the gently sloping nature of the site, the part of the proposed front boundary wall2 directly adjacent to the site access would be slightly taller from ground level than this. Given the shallow slope across the site, this wall would gradually increase in height towards the eastern end of the site.

As such, the height and width of the proposed front boundary wall would likely obscure a driver’s visibility of any young children approaching the driveway entrance whilst a vehicle is exiting. Similarly, young children passing the wall would not have visibility of any exiting vehicle. Young children can be prone to running ahead, even in the presence of adult caregivers. The proposed development would accordingly increase the risk of an accident in a location where children are known to pass on a regular basis.

The height and width of the proposed front boundary wall would also likely obscure a driver’s visibility of any wheelchair users approaching the driveway entrance. For the same reasons, a wheelchair user passing the proposed front boundary wall would likely have difficulty seeing an exiting vehicle. Again, this would increase the risk of a collision between an exiting vehicle and vulnerable users of the footway.

[address] (No 135) and [site address] have a shared dropped kerb onto the carriageway. The height of the wall at the western end of 1 [name] on the submitted plans. 2 [name] on the submitted plans. the site would likely obstruct the visibility of a driver exiting No 135’s driveway of any young children or wheelchair users approaching No 135’s driveway. Taking all of the above into account, the proposed development would cause a danger to vulnerable users of the footway.

No details have been provided regarding the opening procedure for the proposed electric sliding gate. Nevertheless, if the proposed development were acceptable in all other respects, such details could be required to be submitted to the Council for their approval prior to the use of the gate. This would ensure that the gate would not impede the free flow of traffic near the site. However, this would not overcome the concerns identified above.

I therefore find that the proposed development would have an unacceptable effect on pedestrian safety. It would conflict with Policy 32 of the Local Plan which provides that the Council will consider the potential impact of any development on road safety and will ensure that it is not significantly adversely affected, and with part F of Policy T4 of the London Plan (published 2021) which provides that, amongst other things, development proposals should not increase road danger.

Reference has been made to the potential exercise of permitted development rights under Class A of Part 2 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended). I have no reason to doubt that this permitted development right could be implemented, in the event that this appeal is dismissed.

Such a development utilising the maximum allowances under Class A of Part 2 could result in the wall adjacent to the footway being stepped, due to the sloping nature of the site. Nevertheless, I observed stepped walling across several frontages along [address]. Such an arrangement would not therefore appear out-of-keeping with the area. It would also result in a development with a less dominant appearance in the street scene when compared with the proposed development.

The appellants have referred to the option of utilising Class A of Part 2, with the front boundary wall having a maximum height of 1 metre with a uniform form, with its lowest point being approximately 0.7 metres in height. Even though the sliding gate would be slightly higher than the front boundary wall, as a lesser amount of built form would exist along the frontage of the site, the development would appear much less prominent and dominant in the street scene in comparison with the proposed development. This option would provide a lesser degree of security than the proposed development. However, few details have been provided to substantiate the need for the proposed development in this regard, and as these benefits would be largely private in nature, they provide very limited support for the proposed development.

As the exercise of Class A of Part 2 would likely result in a less harmful development in terms of its effect on the character and appearance of the area, it merits little weight in favour of the proposed development.

The benefits of the proposed development would not outweigh the harms identified on the main issues above. The relevant material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided otherwise than in accordance with the

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole, the approach in the National Planning Policy Framework, and all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.