Appeal 6000416

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The description of development is set out extensively within the application form. However, in the interests of conciseness and accuracy, I have utilised a briefer description which has removed the descriptive elements which in themselves do not constitute development.

I have also had regard to a degree of inconsistency in the site address between the appellant’s submissions and the version identified by the Council in the Notice of Decision. Despite the differences, I am satisfied that both are referring to the same site and have adopted the address utilised on the application form.

As noted from the appeal documentation and what I have observed on site, a fence has been constructed at the appeal site. Notwithstanding this, I have determined the appeal on the basis of the submitted drawings which accompanied planning application DC/24/02624/FULL1.

The main issue is the proposed development’s effect on the character and appearance of the Chislehurst Conservation Area.

The Chislehurst Conservation Area (the CA) derives substantial significance from the numerous commons located within it which create a semi-rural, wooded character. The area has evolved over time from smaller scattered village settlements and large country estates with notable influences from the Arts and Crafts movement and [name] ideals. The Supplementary Planning Guidance for Chislehurst Conservation Area (the SPG) notes that boundary treatments contribute positively to the character and appearance of the conservation area and that original gates, walls, and hedges are encouraged to be maintained or reinstated. The SPG goes on to state that new or replacement boundary treatments should reflect traditional building forms, materials and detailing appropriate to the era and style of surrounding buildings.

The appeal site is located on [address] and is sited directly opposite a wooded part of the [name]. The appeal dwelling is detached and sits as part of a row of large houses comprising a mix of semi-detached and detached dwellings of varying architectural styles. Despite the differences in the design of the dwellings along this row, their front boundary treatments are generally consistent comprising either low boundary walls with low, open fencing atop, or picket fences. These traditional boundary treatments create a sense of permeability and openness, allowing for views to the houses beyond at ground level as well as contribute to the visual historical quality of the street scene. The appeal site itself originally had only a low boundary wall with low black railings above which had contributed positively to the character and appearance of the street scene.

I recognise that the proposed development would result in an overall reduction in height from the existing fence observed in situ, but it would nevertheless have a substantial physical presence, creating a visually more dominant structure within the immediate street scene to the front of the appeal dwelling. The use of timber panel feather board fencing would appear as a harsh and incongruous feature and would represent a failure to respect the traditional form of boundary treatments within the context of the wider row of dwellings and the CA.

I acknowledge the appellant’s stated intention to replace the previously removed hedge planting with shrubs planted behind the proposed fence. However, the planting would not, as described, sit in front of the proposed fence and would not provide visual mitigation to the structure’s prominent appearance within the street scene. Furthermore, the fence would fail to contribute to the sense of permeability and openness that the treatment to the front of the appeal dwelling had once contributed to. The proposed development would therefore fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA.

I am mindful that in light of this conclusion, and in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (the framework), that an assessment as to the level of harm to the heritage asset must be made. In this instance, I find that the proposed development would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of the CA, and that this harm would be set at the lower end of the spectrum. In this circumstance, the framework sets out that this type of harm must be weighed against public benefit.

The appellant has not brought to my attention any elements of public benefit, and I do not consider that any such benefits of more than limited significance would arise by way of the temporary employment opportunity during the construction of the development. I am therefore satisfied that this would fail to outweigh the permanent harm as outlined above.

For these reasons, I find harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and street scene and failure to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Chislehurst Conservation Area. As such, I find conflict with Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as well as policies 37 and 41 of the Bromley Local Plan and HC 1 of the London Plan. These policies, amongst other things, aim to ensure that development within a conservation area preserves and enhances its characteristics and appearance by respecting and incorporating features that contribute to the character, appearance or historic value of the area and uses high quality materials.

The appellant has provided an image of a timber feather board and concrete boundary treatment and has referred to other similar feather board fences to the east of the appeal site on [address]. However, there is a general absence of information provided in relation to the circumstances leading to the construction of these examples, and in any event, they are not a defining characteristic of the CA and from which further similar development would be supported.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.