None

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 23 June 2025 by V Simpson BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 8TH July 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000194 Proposal: Erection of a residential outbuilding at Walden Hill, Yester Park, Chislehurst, Bromley BR7 5DG. Application Ref: DC/24/02392/FULL6 Decision – Allowed and planning permission is granted. Reasons Issue – effect on character and appearance of the Chislehurst Conservation Area (CA) 1. The appeal site forms part of the Chislehurst CA. The significance of the CA stems, at least in part, from the woodland and spacious suburban development within it. It is also from the general consistency in the scale and style of many of the houses within parts of it. The appeal site contains a large house within a generous and verdant plot. It is one of a row of similar nearby properties, and it makes a positive contribution to the CA. 2. The outbuilding would be constructed on a lower part of a sizable rear garden that is accessed via the house or the fairly narrow pathway alongside it. Even though the building would have accommodation over 2 levels, its flat roof would be of a similar height to the upper level of the garden it would adjoin, and the rear garden would remain spacious. Furthermore, despite its fairly large floor area, the outbuilding would be substantially smaller and clearly subservient in scale to the large house on the site. Moreover, its location, limited access, and roof forming a continuation of the lawned area of the upper garden, means the structure would read as an outbuilding rather than a separate dwelling. 3. Subject to suitable measures being implemented to protect those trees that would be retained during any site clearance, excavation and construction phases of the development, no unacceptable harm or damage to these trees would result. Such measures should be secured by appropriately worded conditions. 4. The form and design detailing of the outbuilding would differ from that of the host dwelling and other nearby houses. However, the separation distance and differing ground levels between the development and the closest houses on Yester Park, would prevent the development from being incongruous with these houses. Instead, and due to its location and it simple form and detailing, the development would sit comfortably within its garden and woodland setting, and it would not reduce the contribution that the site makes to the significance of the CA. 5. Consequently, the development would preserve the character and the appearance of the CA, and it would accord with the development plan policies cited on the decision notice. 2 Issue – effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, with particular regard to noise, activity and privacy 6. The development would be undertaken on the lower section of the rear garden, and it would include a new external terrace, and an accessible grass roof that would be higher than the closest parts of the neighbouring gardens. However, it would not create a new planning unit. As such, and despite the height of the grass roof, I would not expect the level of noise or activity generated from the normal use of the proposed building and the associated outdoor spaces, to be a-typical of that which could ordinarily be expected in a garden serving a single house in a residential area. Therefore, the development would not prevent neighbouring occupiers from securing reasonable levels of peace within their rear gardens. 7. Users of the proposed outbuilding, its grass roof, and the associated terrace, would undoubtedly be able to see into parts of the lower sections of the neighbouring rear gardens. However, these exterior areas of the development, and the windows within the building that would address the garden of Yester House, would be several metres from the neighbouring properties. Moreover, the trees within the neighbouring gardens and those that are on or close to the site boundaries would interrupt and obstruct clear views into these gardens. Consequently, the occupiers of the neighbouring properties would retain a reasonable level of privacy in their rear gardens. 8. For these reasons, the development would not harm the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, with particular regard to noise, activity and privacy, and it accords with the related policies cited in the decision notice. Other matters 10. Any future material change of use of parts of the site to create a separate planning unit would require planning permission. As such, no condition is needed to prevent the severance of the outbuilding from the house. Conclusion 11. The proposal complies with the development plan as a whole and nothing indicates a decision otherwise. Conditions 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos; Location Plan dated 22-Jun-2024, PHA-PL-021, PHA-PL-003 rev B, PHA-PL-005, PHA-PL-007, PHA-PL-010, PHA-PL-012, PHA-PL-022 rev A, and PHA-PL-011 rev A. 3) No site clearance or development shall take place until the tree protection measures identified at Appendix D of the Arboricultural Survey, Constraints, Impact Assessment & Tree Protection Report dated 5 September 2022 & June 2024 have been fully implemented. Thereafter, these measures shall be retained until the completion of the works and any associated surplus construction materials, waste, and machinery have been removed from the site. 3 4) No site clearance or development shall take place until an arboricultural method statement for the protection of the retained trees during the site clearance and construction phases of the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This shall include a scheme of supervision of the works, which shall include details of; • induction of staff in awareness of arboricultural matters; • timing and methods of site visiting and record keeping; • procedures for dealing with variations and incidents; • details of the qualifications and experience of the person or company that will administer the scheme • The development shall subsequently be undertaken in accordance with the approved details. In this condition “retained trees” means existing trees that are to be retained in accordance with the approved plans and particulars. 5) Notwithstanding condition 2, no construction above ground level shall take place until a plan showing the east elevation of the outbuilding subject of this permission has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall subsequently be carried out in accordance with this approved plan. 6) No construction above ground level shall take place until details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall subsequently be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 7) Any tree that is to be felled as part of the development, shall be replaced by the planting of another tree on the site. As such, and before the commencement of any above-ground level construction works, a full specification of all proposed replacement tree planting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The specification shall include the quantity, size, species, and positions of all trees to be planted, how they will be planted and protected, and the proposed time of planting. The tree planting shall subsequently be carried out in accordance with the approved specification. 8) If within five years of its planting, any original replacement tree is uprooted, destroyed or dies, another tree of the same size and species shall be planted in the same place within the first planting season following the uprooting, destruction or death of that tree. Reason for condition 2: Certainty Reason for conditions 3-8: To protect the character and appearance of the area. Conditions 3 and 4 would need to be pre-commencement conditions as site clearance works have the potential to harm trees that are proposed to be retained. V Simpson INSPECTOR