Appeal 6008996

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for introduction of entrance gates and piers serving existing in/out driveway and upgrading existing driveway including landscaping at [site address] , Keston, Bromley [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Reference 25/00082/FULL6 and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall be retained in accordance with the following approved plans: 23 and BD-902-PD-GATE-01.

The soft landscaping shown on the approved plans shall be retained. If any planting shown on the approved plans has not yet been carried out, it shall be carried out in the first planting season following the date of this decision. Any proposed tree, hedge, shrub or other plant shown on the approved plans which, within a period of 5 years from the date of this decision, dies, is removed, uprooted, destroyed or becomes seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next available planting season with another of similar size and species.

I observed on my site visit that the development has been carried out. For the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the appeal on the basis of the revised drawing submitted with the application.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area, including whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the [site address] Conservation Area (CA).

The appeal property is a two-storey detached dwelling located within a private estate comprising large detached dwellinghouses of varying designs. The dwelling is set back from [name] and has a landscaped frontage containing mature trees and planting. Two cedar trees to the front of the plot are protected by a Tree Preservation Order. Gates and brick piers serve an existing in/out driveway arrangement punctuated by soft landscaping.

The surrounding area is characterised by large, detached houses, often set within open, spacious and verdant plots. [name] itself has a particularly enclosed and landscaped character, with mature trees, hedging and planting making a strong contribution to the street scene. There are also numerous examples in the immediate area of front boundary treatments formed by gates, piers, hedging and soft landscaping. Whilst the planning history of those features is unknown, they form part of the existing context in which the appeal development is experienced.

The appeal site is also located in the CA. The terms of Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 require me to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas.

The Supplementary Planning Guidance for [site address] Conservation Area (the SPG) identifies the significance of the CA as deriving from its historical connection with the [address] Estate and the innovative way in which the Rogers family incorporated the landscape into a high-quality landscaped estate character. The SPG gives particular importance to the highly dispersed and wooded character of the area and notes that open-plan lawns to the roads are an important feature distinguishing it from more conventional estates. It states that the retention of open front gardens will be encouraged, that new front boundary walls where none exist will normally be resisted, and that where built enclosure is introduced, it should generally be combined with planting. It further states that planning permissions will normally be subject to landscape conditions to preserve important spatial and landscape characteristics.

The proposal would introduce two sets of brick piers with gates within the frontage of the appeal site, interspersed with soft landscaping and providing vehicular and pedestrian access. The brick piers would be appreciable features. However, they would be set back from the highway, limited in extent and would be seen in the context of a substantial dwelling, a generous plot and a broad landscaped frontage. They would not form a continuous wall or a strongly enclosing boundary. As such, they would not appear as an unduly dominant or visually intrusive form of development and would remain subordinate to the main dwelling.

The materials and domestic appearance of the piers would relate acceptably to the host dwelling. The gates and piers would also sit within a frontage that remains strongly influenced by soft landscaping. Mature trees and planting would be retained and would continue to soften the built elements and maintain the verdant character of the site.

I recognise that the SPG places importance on open frontages. However, the character of [name] itself remains strongly dominated by trees, hedging and landscaping. It also has a more enclosed and linear character than some other roads within the estate, where open lawns and uninterrupted frontages are more readily discernible from the street and make a clearer contribution to the street scene. In this context, the proposal would not result in the loss of a wider sense of openness, nor would it materially erode the spatial or landscape qualities that contribute to the significance of the CA.

Furthermore, there are numerous examples in the immediate area where gates and piers, together with hedging and planting, form part of the established frontage treatment. Where the appeal development would be visible in oblique views from [name], it would be read in that local context rather than as an isolated or incongruous feature.

Taking these factors together, the proposal would have a neutral effect on the significance of the CA, preserving its overall character and appearance. The alteration to the host dwelling would have limited visual impact and, where visible, would read as a proportionate response to its context whilst maintaining the key elements which contribute to the significance of the CA. The proposal would not materially erode the open, spacious or landscaped qualities identified in the SPG, nor would it result in a discernible adverse impact upon the heritage value of the Conservation Area.

Overall, I conclude that the proposal would not harm the character or appearance of the host dwelling or the surrounding area. It would also preserve the character and appearance of the CA as a whole and there would be no harm to its significance as a designated heritage asset. As such, the proposal would accord with Policy HC1 of the London Plan (2021) and Policies 37 and 43 of the Bromley Local Plan (2019), which amongst other things, seek to secure a high standard of design high quality design and preserve the character and appearance of conservation areas.

I have considered the representations from neighbouring occupiers. The Council raised no concern with loss of privacy or highway safety and based upon my observations on site and the evidence before me I see no reason to disagree. The boundary position is principally a private matter between the relevant parties and does not alter my assessment of this appeal. Matters relating to the ongoing maintenance of planting, insofar as they are relevant to the proposed development, can be addressed through a landscaping condition.

I have considered the tests set out at paragraph 57 of the National Planning Policy Framework and the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance: Use of planning conditions. The statutory time limit condition is not necessary, given that the development has already been completed. A condition specifying the relevant approved plans is necessary in the interests of certainty.

The significance of the CA is closely related to its strong landscape framework and verdant frontage character. My finding of a neutral impact upon the CA is therefore partly dependent on the retention of soft landscaping around the gates and piers. A condition securing the retention, and replacement where necessary, of the soft landscaping shown on the approved drawings would be necessary, relevant to the development, enforceable, precise and reasonable.

For the reasons given above, having taken account of the development plan as a whole, along with all other relevant material considerations, the appeal should be allowed.