Appeal 6000829

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for Demolition of part of the existing building and erection of 3 storey building comprising 9 apartments together with 9 parking spaces at [site address] , Bickley, Bromley [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00651/FULL1, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

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 main issues are: - The effect of the proposal on protected trees and - the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of existing and future occupiers.

The appeal site comprises of [site address] (No.6) is a detached residential building situated on the leafy suburban street. Properties are set in large generous plots surrounded by verdant landscaping. It is located in the Bickley Park Conservation Area (BPCA), the significance of which includes large dwellings within a landscaped setting.

This is reflected in the appeal site which possesses a verdant character particularly to its rear where several mature high-quality trees are situated in its expansive garden particularly T38 and T45. The Oak T38 is identified as just a tree in the CA whereas the Oak T45 also possesses a tree preservation order. These are in reasonable condition and are highly visible from the surrounding properties and consequently make a significant contribution to the character and appearance of the area and Bickley Conservation Area.

The appellant’s [name] and Planning Integration Report describes both T38 and T45 as [name] major Oaks of reasonable condition and finds that the siting of the proposed development would not be harmful to the trees, subject to the development being constructed in line with the recommendations in the [name] and Planning Integration Report. I note the appellant’s submissions that the proposal would not be harmful to the trees and the roots from both [name] (RPA) appear to be deeply bedded so any roots damaged or severed would not prevent the overall structure of the tree remaining intact and functional. I also note that the foundations would be dug by hand under the supervision of a qualified arborist.

The appellant has shown the RPAs in [name] of the updated [name], and whilst these are close to the rear elevation of the proposal, the level of encroachment would be minimal. In addition, the appellant’s assessment considers the effect of development on the soil type and its condition and how it would respond to potential ground compaction. Whilst the construction may result in a degree of compaction; I am satisfied that due to the proposed protective fencing and by digging of foundations by hand that the trees would be sufficiently protected in this regard. Accordingly, due to minimal level of encroachment and other precautionary measures outlined above, the trees would be sufficiently safeguarded to prevent a demonstrable adverse impact.

I also note the Council’s concerns that due to the proximity of the trees to the proposed building, the trees could be under pressure from future occupiers who may propose tree works. However, considering the size and location of the trees any prospective occupants of the proposed apartments would be fully aware of their presence prior to their occupation. Also, the outlook from rear facing windows would take in a wide wooded area, visible around and beyond the closet trees. As a result, the trees would not be under threat of removal due to this relationship.

The Council also highlight concerns that pruning trees to the front of the site may occur once the proposed car parking spaces are in use. [name] consider this to be a possibility, any future tree works to would not result in substantive harm to the trees, where routine maintenance of such trees is common practice. As a result, from the evidence before me, I do not consider any potential future minor works to these trees to be unacceptable, that would result in material harm.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would not harm high amenity value trees and subsequently would preserve the character and appearance of the BPCA. The proposal would therefore comply with Policies 43, 73 and 74 of the Bromley Local Plan (2019) and Policy G7 of the London Plan (2021). These seek, amongst other things, for development proposals to ensure that, wherever possible, existing trees of value are retained.

The proposal would also accord with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which outlines that developments should add to the overall quality of the area and be sympathetic to local character including the landscape setting.

The proposed apartment building would sit alongside and partially behind the existing building and be three stories in height. The existing apartments occupying the double bay window to the southeastern side of the host building currently possess wide panoramic views of the extensive garden area which includes the appeal site and the cricket ground beyond. The proposed building would partially reduce this open outlook. However, the bay window is served by three windows all with separate outlooks and whilst I note views of the proposal would be gained from the window closest to the development, I am satisfied that the overall outlook to these rooms would not be materially harmed.

Turning to privacy the proposed building has several side windows. At ground floor, these consist of a bathroom window, ensuite window and a kitchen window, at second floor there are three windows serving a kitchen, bedroom and living room and within a roof one dormer window which would serve a kitchen/living space. However, all but the first-floor bedroom window would serve either non-habitable rooms or are small secondary windows. The remaining bedroom window, serving flat 4, is small. As such, the side windows would provide only limited and largely oblique views towards the southeastern bay window of the existing building. As a result, I do not consider the privacy of the occupants of the existing building would be substantively harmed in this regard.

The appellant has submitted a Daylight and Sunlight Assessment as part of the appeal in order to address the second refusal reason. The assessment indicates that for all the windows adjacent to the proposed building surveyed at No.6 achieve a vertical sky component measurement of above 27% or no more than a 20% reduction of the previous level and so good levels of light would be retained to all windows of No.6. There is no detailed contrary evidence before me to suggest that this would not be the case. Given the tri aspect of the rooms served by the bay window there is also nothing to suggest that those windows would not also retain adequate levels of daylight.

Having regard to the above I am satisfied that the living conditions of existing and future occupiers at the appeal site would be sufficiently safeguarded. The proposal therefore complies with Policy 37 of the Bromley Local Plan (2019) which seeks, amongst other things, for new development to safeguard the amenity of future and existing occupiers.

I note the comments from interested parties regarding the concerns that damage may occur to the highway of [address] and request conditions securing maintenance to the highway as part of any planning approval. However, [address] is a private highway, and this is a civil matter which is outside of the remit of this appeal.

Several interested parties have highlighted concerns that the proposed development will result in highway safety and parking issues. However, the highway authority has raised no highway safety or parking issues as a result of the development, and I see no reason to disagree with this conclusion. As a result, I consider the proposals to accord with the development plan in this respect.

I have had regard to concerns raised by third parties about the impact the proposal would have on the character and appearance of the area. However, I am satisfied that the detailed design of the development does not result in an adverse effect on the overall character or appearance of the site or wider area, in preservation of the BPCA.

I acknowledge the comments from third parties asserting that the existing building onsite is being used as a House in [name] and causes antisocial behaviour. However, there is nothing before me to suggest how this would materially affect the appeal scheme which proposes apartments.

The Council have provided, with their statement, suggested conditions should this appeal be allowed. Where necessary I have made revisions to some of the conditions to ensure that they meet the tests in the Framework and Planning Practice Guidance, without altering their fundamental aims.

Planning permission is granted subject to the standard 3-year time limit condition for implementation. In addition, it is necessary to specify the approved plans and in the interests of certainty.

Matching materials are required in the interests of character and appearance. A condition requiring the provision of lighting for the parking area is required in the interests of visual amenity. The provision of a construction management plan and details of vehicle wash down facilities are required in the interests of amenity. A condition securing a Surface water drainage scheme is required to ensure the site is drained in accordance with sustainable drainage principles. A condition requiring tree protection measures is required in the interests of the character and appearance of the area.

Conditions for the submission of further details in relation to bicycle storage arrangements, refuse facilities, parking and vehicle turning areas would be unnecessary as it is adequately covered in the details provided.

However, a condition requiring a road condition survey is not required due to the relatively modest scale of development and the access being a private road.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.

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

The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of 3 years, beginning with the date of this decision notice.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos HG043.3.209.SC, HG043.3.208.EL, HG043.3.203.FF, HG043.3.207.EL, HG043.3.202.GF, HG043.3.100.LP, HG043.3.206.EL, HGO43.3. 212.HLP, HG043.3.204.SF, HG043.3.211.SLP, HGO43.3. 201.SP, HG043.3.205.RF, HG043.3.200.LP and HG043.3.210.AHP.

No development above ground level shall take place until details the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

[name] for Parking Area (AG13) Prior to the commencement of above ground works details of a scheme to light the access drive and car parking areas hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be self-certified to accord with BS 5489 - 1:2003, or equivalent updated version. The lighting scheme as approved shall be implemented in full accordance with details submitted before the development is first occupied and the lighting shall be permanently retained thereafter.

No development shall commence on site (including demolition) until such time as a Construction and Environmental Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. As a minimum the plan shall cover: (a) Dust mitigation and management measures commensurate with a medium risk site (b) The location and operation of plant and wheel washing facilities (c) Measures to control demolition and construction noise including, where applicable, noise trigger levels and monitoring and a plan to show where the nearest noise sensitive premises are in relation to the site. (d) Details of construction traffic movements including cumulative impacts which shall demonstrate the following: (i) Rationalise travel and traffic routes to and from the site as well as within the site. (ii) Provide full details of the number and time of construction vehicle trips to the site with the intention and aim of reducing the impact of construction related activity. (iii) Measures to deal with safe pedestrian movement. (iv) Full contact details of the site and project manager responsible for day-today management of the works (v) Parking for operatives during construction period (vi) A swept path drawings for any tight manoeuvres on vehicle routes to and from the site including proposed access and egress arrangements at the site boundary. (e) Hours of operation (f) Other site specific Highways and Environmental Protection issues as requested on a case by case basis (g) The development shall be undertaken in full accordance with the details approved under Parts (a)-(f).

Surface water from private land shall not discharge on to the highway. Prior to the commencement of above ground works details of the drainage system for surface water drainage to prevent the discharge of surface water from private land on to the highway shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Before any part of the development hereby permitted is first occupied, the drainage system shall be completed in accordance with the details approved and shall be retained permanently thereafter.

Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved (including the arrival of machinery and materials and all preparatory work), tree protection measures in accordance with the approved tree protection plan shall be installed. Such measures shall not be moved or removed, but shall be retained in situ until completion of the development and all materials and machinery have been removed from the site, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall only proceed in accordance with the approved arboricultural method statement. End of Conditions