New boundary railings and gates to front garden

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 10 July 2025 by Alexander O’Doherty LLB (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 14 July 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000210 Deneside, Orchard Road, Pratts Bottom, Orpington BR6 7NS • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr M Doyle against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Bromley. • The application Ref is DC/24/04410/FULL6. • The development proposed is new boundary railings and gates to front garden . Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. Deneside is a contemporarily-designed detached dwelling situated in a verdant residential area. Although variation exists in the local area, frontages are predominantly either open or partially enclosed by hedging. This hedging is found behind short grass verges, and is often low and unobtrusive. Tall gates are present at Carwinion and Dengate, but the occurrence of such structures is very much the exception rather than the rule in the area. 4. The proposed development would introduce 2 pairs of timber gates, separated by a central section of railings. Each of the pair of gates would be tall structures, composed of solid hardwood timber. Their prominence in nearby views would be increased due to the tall piers proposed for either side of the pair of gates. Whilst the proposed railings would allow views through the square gaps, the amount of black metal railings involved means that this element of the proposed development would not appear as an insubstantial structure in the street scene. 5. Overall, even taking account of its set-back from the carriageway and that the design of the proposed development would not appear at odds with Deneside itself, due to its scale and siting the proposed development would appear as a prominent and dominant addition to the street scene. It would appear out-of- keeping with the commonly understated front boundary treatments found nearby. Harm to the character and appearance of the area would result. 6. Views towards the driveway serving Deneside are currently partially obscured by the tall trees present to the south of the site. Nevertheless, the proposed development would be clearly visible from the northern end of Orchard Road, Appeal Decision 6000210 2 where its incongruity in the street scene would be evident. Although structures such as gates and fences could potentially be constructed at nearby properties through the use of permitted development rights, this appeal must be determined on the basis of the currently-prevailing circumstances. None of these matters alters my findings above. 7. I therefore find that the proposed development would have an unacceptable and harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would conflict with part b of Policy 37 of the Bromley Local Plan (adopted 2019) (Local Plan) which provides that, amongst other things, developments will be expected to positively contribute to the existing street scene. 8. The proposed development would conflict with part D 1) of Policy D3 of the London Plan (published 2021) which provides that, amongst other things, development proposals should enhance local context by delivering buildings and spaces that positively respond to local distinctiveness. 9. The proposed development would also conflict with paragraph 135 c) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which provides that, amongst other things, planning decisions should ensure that developments are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities). 10. Policy D4 of the London Plan primarily deals with the methods by which design is analysed, scrutinised, and maintained, and so is not directly relevant to this main issue. Nevertheless, the above-mentioned policies are sufficient for me to come to a view on this main issue. Other Matters 11. The lack of objections from local residents is a neutral matter, which does not weigh in favour of the proposed development. 12. The proposed development would provide for increased security on site, which is supported by part h of Policy 37 of the Local Plan. However, it has not been demonstrated that a less harmful scheme could not achieve the same aims. In any event, as the benefits in this regard would be largely private in nature, they attract little weight in support of the proposed development. 13. The benefits of the proposed development would not outweigh the harm identified on the main issue above. The relevant material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. Conclusion 14. For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole, the approach in the Framework, and all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Alexander O’Doherty INSPECTOR