Appeal 6007259

The appeal is dismissed.

On 16 December 2025, the Government published a consultation on proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Whilst broad changes to the structure of the Framework are proposed as part of this consultation, these proposals could be subject to further change and can only be given very limited weight at this stage. It has therefore not been necessary to consult the parties on the changes, and in reaching my decision, I have had regard to the Framework published in December 2024.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • highway safety, with particular reference to pedestrian safety; and • the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal property is a two storey semi-detached dwelling, set back from the highway behind a small car parking area. A previous appeal1 at the site for a similar proposal was dismissed in 2025. However, the current appeal proposal features a reduction in the height of the brick piers and slatted panels atop the wall. Furthermore, the slatted panel arrangement, would feature wider spacing including 50mm horizontal slats with 50mm gaps.

Due to the constrained layout of the car parking area, vehicles are likely to reverse onto the highway when exiting the appeal property. As a result, without sufficient 1 [name]: 6000251 visibility splays, drivers leaving the appeal site would have limited warning of pedestrians using the adjacent pavement. Although this stretch of pavement was not particularly busy during my visit, this represents only a snapshot in time. I note that two schools are located nearby, and their pupils are likely to use the pavement which crosses the front of the appeal site.

The piers would be 1.4 metres in height, with the top of the slatted panels at 1.35 metres. I acknowledge that these reduced heights would provide some improvement in visibility for drivers exiting the property. However, the submitted plans do not demonstrate that the visibility splays recommended by the Council’s Highways Officer can be achieved at the access point. These require unobstructed visibility above 1 metre in height from ground level.

Despite the reduction, the piers would remain solid structures which, given their height, would continue to impede visibility. Similarly, while the slatted panel design would be more open than the previous arrangement, it seems to me, that given the limited width of the gaps, they would continue to restrict visibility, albeit to a lesser degree than previously. However, I have no substantive evidence before me to indicate that visibility splays can accommodate the limitations in driver visibility which would be caused by the slatted panels.

A convex mirror has been installed on the site’s front boundary. [name] accept that this may assist visibility to some extent, I am not persuaded that it is appropriate to rely on what is effectively a demountable aid. Its effectiveness can be adversely affected by frost, glare from sunlight and vehicle headlights, as well as dirt.

During my site visit, I observed that the utility cabinet on the adjacent pavement is slim and positioned close to the appeal site boundary. For this reason, it is unlikely to significantly influence the path taken by pedestrians using the pavement.

The appellant has indicated that planning conditions could be imposed to require the submission of further details to demonstrate that the required visibility splays could be achieved. However, given the layout of the proposal, from the submitted evidence, the visibility splays do not appear to be achievable. For this reason, a planning condition requiring details of the visibility splays would not be reasonable as required by paragraph 57 of the Framework.

I acknowledge that the geometry of the driveway remains unchanged, and the proposal would not intensify its use. However, for the reasons set out above it has not been demonstrated that the development would provide a safe and suitable access for all users, and the proposal would not comply with the requirement of the Framework that development should only be refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

I conclude that the proposal would harm highway safety. I therefore find that it would conflict with Policy 32 of the Bromley Local Plan (2019) (BLP) and Policy T2 and T4 of the London Plan (2021) (LP) insofar as they expect development to ensure that road safety is not significantly adversely affected.

The appeal property is a semi-detached dwelling located within a residential area. Properties along the road are generally set back behind front gardens or car parking areas, contributing to a spacious and open streetscape. There is variation in front boundary treatments addressing the public highway, which include low brickwork walls, metal railings, timber panels and hedgerows.

During my site visit, I observed taller timber fencing on the opposite side of the road at [address], taller brick piers at [address], and a timber panel store constructed along the boundary of [address]. These examples demonstrate that there is a degree of variation in boundary treatments and that taller elements along front boundaries are not entirely unprecedented in this part of Valley Road.

As a result, following the reduction in the height of the piers and slatted panels since the previous appeal, the proposal would not appear harmfully tall within the immediate context of the appeal site. The proposed brick slip finish would be contextually appropriate, reflecting the materials used in the low brick walls along the frontage of other properties on Valley Road. This would help the proposal integrate with its surroundings.

The slatted panel finish atop the wall and within the front gate would incorporate a 1:1 ratio of solid to void. [name] have previously found that this arrangement would not provide sufficient visibility for drivers, when viewed from a distance, the gaps between the slats would allow increased visibility into the site. This would maintain a degree of visual permeability through the boundary treatment. Consequently, the proposal would not harmfully detract from the open character of the area.

I conclude that the proposal would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. I therefore find that it would comply with Policy 37 of the BLP and Policy D3 of the LP. These seek, amongst other matters, to ensure developments respond to local context, preserving and enhancing the existing qualities of the borough’s townscape, landscape, and streetscape character.

The Framework and National Design Guide outline the importance of development that contributes positively to its surroundings. I have found that the proposal would not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. Be that as it may, these matters do not outweigh the harm I have identified.

The proposal would not accord with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, to indicate that the appeal should be determined otherwise. Therefore, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.