Appeal 6000391

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for installation of six photovoltaic panels to side roof at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/00387/FULL6, and subject to the following condition:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan, Block Plan ([name]. A000) (Rev. 1), [name] ([name]. B100) ([name]), Existing and proposed ground floor plan ([name]. EP100) ([name]), Existing and proposed roof plan ([name]. EP 101).

The description of development given in the application form contains narrative that does not relate to the operative part of the development. This has been removed in the description of development quoted in the banner heading, above.

Differing to the description of development in the banner heading above, the Council's decision notice accurately describes the development as shown on the supporting plans as, "Installation of six photovoltaic panels to side roof (RETROSPECTIVE)". I have used this description in my consideration of the appeal since it best describes the proposed development in precise and concise terms.

The proposed development is already in place and I shall deal with the appeal on this basis. However, ‘retrospective’ is not an act of development, and this has been reflected in the formal decision, above.

The main issue is whether the development preserves or enhances the character or appearance of the Broadoaks Conservation Area.

The appeal site comprises [site address] in Bromley (No 23), a detached dwelling located in a leafy semi-rural residential area. The site is within the Broadoaks Conservation Area (conservation area). The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) provides at s72(1) that with respect to any buildings or other land in a conservation area, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.

The Broadoaks Conservation Area Supplementary Planning Guidance explains that the significance of the conservation area, when considered as a whole, derives in part from its 2 public greens, the roofscape of the estate (which is a dominant element of the estate and which includes hipped roof forms and the use of red clay tiles), and the highly adapted neo-Tudor and neo-vernacular design of the houses in the estate. With an architectural design that is in keeping with other dwellings in the conservation area, and its prominent roof form with weathered dark brown / red tiles, No 23 forms an important part of the conservation area.

I have had regard to the photographs supplied by the appellant. I observed the installed solar panels on my site visit. The solar panels appear to cover a sizeable proportion of the roof slope on which they are sited. Nevertheless, their dark grey matt appearance set against the weathered dark brown / red roof tiles, and their position centrally within the roof slope (set-back from the front elevation of No 23, and behind No 23’s tall chimneys) ensures that they do not appear as a prominent addition to the roof slope.

Moreover, due to the orientation of No 23 and their siting on the flank roof slope away from No 23’s front elevation, they are not readily visible in longer views towards No 23. The trees in the public green opposite the site filter views still further. The visibility of the solar panels is mainly restricted to short-range views in the immediate vicinity of No 23. In these views, the key architectural features of No 23, including its overall architectural style, hipped roof form, and use of distinctive roof tiles, are evident. As such, No 23’s contribution towards the significance of the conservation area as a whole has been preserved.

In this regard, the development follows the advice given in part c) of guidance note DG2 of the SPD1 which provides that, amongst other things, heritage value should be protected and reinforced rather than eroded or diminished. Consequently, no harm has been caused to the significance of the conservation area as a designated heritage asset.

I therefore find that the development preserves the character and appearance of the conservation area. It complies with Policy 6 of the Bromley Local Plan (adopted 2019) (Local Plan) which provides that, amongst other things, the design and layout of proposals for the alteration or enlargement of residential properties will be required to ensure that the scale, form and materials of construction should respect or complement those of the host dwelling and be compatible with development in the surrounding area, and with Policy 37 of the Local Plan which provides that, amongst other things, developments will be expected to positively contribute to the existing street scene and / or landscape and respect important views, heritage assets, skylines, landmarks or landscape features. 1 Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (adopted 2023)

The development complies with Policy 41 of the Local Plan which provides that, amongst other things, proposals for new development, for engineering works, alteration or extension to a building or for change of use of land or buildings within a conservation area will need to preserve and enhance its characteristics and appearance by respecting or complementing the layout, scale, form and materials of existing buildings and spaces.

The development complies with Policy HC1 of the London Plan (published 2021) which provides that, amongst other things, development proposals affecting heritage assets, and their settings, should conserve their significance, by being sympathetic to the assets’ significance and appreciation within their surroundings, and with Policy D3 of the London Plan which provides that, amongst other things, development proposals should respond to the existing character of a place by identifying the special and valued features and characteristics that are unique to the locality and respect, enhance and utilise the heritage assets and architectural features that contribute towards the local character.

I have considered the need for conditions in accordance with the advice on conditions set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and the Planning Practice Guidance. As the development has been carried out I have omitted the standard time limit and materials conditions, as these are no longer necessary. A condition is necessary specifying the approved plans, to provide certainty with respect to the development applied for (condition 1).

As this appeal relates to a householder application, the biodiversity gain condition is not applicable.

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