Appeal 6002452

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 main issue is whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Keston Park Conservation Area.

The appeal site is located on [site address] , within the Keston Park Conservation Area (KPCA). This part of the KPCA is characterised by large, detached houses of varying designs set within generous plots. Houses along the street, including the appeal property, are set well back from the highway behind deep front gardens. The Supplementary Planning Guidance for Keston Park Conservation Area (2002) (SPG) states that the KPCA derives considerable significance from its historical connection with the [address] Estate. This part of the KPCA is not characterised by unbounded front gardens and an open feel, however houses appear subordinate to the mature woodland landscape setting of the Keston Park. The large, flat front gardens along [site address] contribute to the grand setting of the houses, whilst mature trees and hedges visible within plots and along their boundaries contribute to the green character of significance to the KPCA.

The host dwelling is a wide, detached two-storey house distinguished by its white render and black timber (mock-Tudor) front porch and red hanging tile clad first floor. The host dwelling positively contributes to the individualistic, grand, and Appeal Planning Officer 6002452 verdant character of the KPCA, due in part to its siting well back from the highway behind a flat front garden.

The proposed boundary treatment would consist of tall metal railings extending the width of the front garden with brick piers framing metal gates across the front driveway. Due to the wide frontage of the appeal site, the metal railings would stretch for some distance, appearing as a dominant feature in the otherwise green streetscene. Whilst the proposed railings would allow for views to the front garden and the 4 proposed trees planted behind, their width, and height extending noticeably above what is common in the surrounding area, would make them appear utilitarian and would fail to preserve the verdant, residential character of the KPCA.

The appellant has drawn my attention to a number of properties on [site address] that have front garden boundary treatments. Many of these boundary treatments consist of hedges, and whilst there are examples of metal railings and brick walls along the street, they extend neither the width nor the height of the proposal, with metal railings of a height similar to the proposal situated only across front driveways. These front garden boundary treatments are not therefore prominent in the streetscene and preserve the landscape dominance and green character of significance to the KPCA.

Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires me to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas. Given my findings above, the proposed development would neither preserve nor enhance the character or appearance of the KPCA. Given the proposal’s modest scale in relation to the KPCA, it would result in less than substantial harm to the KPCA.

The National Planning Policy Framework states that great weight should be given to the conservation of a designated heritage asset (in this case the KPCA) and that less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset should be weighed against the public benefits of the appeal scheme. I acknowledge that a front boundary treatment would deter crime and provide security to the occupants of Lyndhurst, however this is primarily a private benefit. Furthermore, I am not convinced that a front boundary treatment at the appeal site could not be achieved through a less harmful design. Consequently, in heritage terms, the limited public benefits of the proposal would not outweigh the harm to the KPCA identified above.

For these reasons, the proposed development would neither preserve nor enhance the character or appearance of the KPCA. Consequently, it would conflict with Policies 37 and 41 of the Bromley Local Plan (2019), Policy HC1 of the London Plan (2021), and the guidance contained within the SPG. Together these seek to ensure that development is well-integrated with its surroundings, particularly in terms of style and form, and does not result in unacceptable harm to the character and distinctiveness of the built environment.

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

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