Part retrospective approval for demolition and reconstruction of front boundary wall with two sets of vehicular gates along with native hedging

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 17 November 2025 by F Bradford BA (Hons) MRTPI Decision by Martin Seaton BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 20 April 2026 Appeal Ref: 6000488 3 Denbridge Road, Bickley, Bromley BR1 2AG • 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 & Mrs Fitzsimmons against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Bromley. • The application Ref is DC/25/01207/FULL6. • The development is described as “Part retrospective approval for demolition and reconstruction of front boundary wall with two sets of vehicular gates along with native hedging ”. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure 2. 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. Preliminary Matters 3. From the evidence before me and from what I have observed when on site, the development appears to have been substantially completed. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the development’s effect on the character and appearance of the locally listed host dwelling and the Bickley Park Conservation Area. Reasons for the Recommendation Character and Appearance 5. The significance of the Bickley Park Conservation Area is derived from its reflections of the social and cultural trends of the late 19th and early 20th centuries including rising prosperity, improved links to London, and a growing desire for rural living. This character is expressed through organic, picturesque layouts and elegant Arts and Crafts homes set in generous plots among mature trees and quiet lanes. Its significance lies in this semi-rural setting combined with high-quality architecture. 6. The site comprises an impressive, locally listed detached dwelling of one and a half storeys which is distinctly of the Arts and Craft movement in terms of its architectural style and is sited within a generous plot which rises away from the highway. The architecture and its setting are key components of its significance. Appeal Decision 6000488 2 7. The area’s distinctive semi-rural character is contributed to by the prevalence of mature trees, gardens and subtle, understated boundary treatments. The prevailing front boundary treatments within the area are low front boundaries with some including railings with vegetation or just boundary vegetation alone. The Supplementary Planning Guidance, Bickley Park Conservation Area states that these treatments, particularly frontages to the street, have a “major impact” on its overall appearance and goes on to note that hedges are the most appropriate boundary treatment as they reinforce the semi-rural, woodland setting which is paramount to the character of the estate. This contributes both to the significance of the appeal property as a Non-Designated Heritage Asset (NDHA) and to the character of the wider conservation area. 8. The evidence before me indicates that the previous boundary treatment was formed by a low boundary wall with access to vehicular parking afforded through gaps at either side. The boundary wall had included access to the front door via a set of stairs in the centre, which was sandwiched between two areas of planting at the same level of the boundary wall. This boundary treatment, along with the expanse of front garden, had contributed positively to the semi-rural character of the area. The appellant’s statement demonstrates that the arrangement of a retaining front wall with garden behind to the same level and central access path were original features of the dwelling and its associated landscaping. 9. The development as undertaken has resulted in the introduction of a continuous low front boundary wall with associated pillars rising marginally above it. To either end, the vehicular entrances feature taller pillars on either side, as well as the introduction of black-iron-effect gates. The front garden area appears to have been partially excavated to accommodate a hedge then gravel driveway immediately behind it. 10. I do not find that in itself the height of the boundary wall acts to detract from the open and rural character and appearance of the area. In fact, I recognise that the height of the boundary wall appears to be similar to that of the previous and original arrangement. However, the excavation of the front garden behind to accommodate the driveway, and the loss of the central pedestrian entrance, acting as a visual break, and infilling with gates and piers the gaps on either end of the wall, has resulted in a visual effect where the wall and boundary treatment appear more prominent within the public realm. 11. This overall impact, introduces an incongruous boundary typology, enclosing the appeal dwelling and eroding the sense of spaciousness and openness. The resultant visual effect presents a significantly more domestic urban boundary treatment, undermining the semi-rural, woodland character and harming the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Whilst I recognise the planting of native hedging immediately behind the boundary wall does to an extent soften its appearance, it would not act to mitigate the overall harm arising from the development. 12. I recognise that the appeal site has undergone substantial alterations, including to the driveways and the excavation of the front garden, but for the reasons given this does not in itself justify the approach to the development subject to this appeal. I also have no evidence before me to indicate the Council’s view in relation to the driveways which had existed prior to the development, and in any event, whether or Appeal Decision 6000488 3 not the development represents a natural evolution from the existing front driveway or not, it requires permission and assessment of its planning merits. 13. The National Planning Policy Framework (2024) (the Framework) sets out that when considering the impact of development on the significance of a designated heritage asset (the Conservation Area), great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation, irrespective of the level of harm to its significance. In this instance, harm would be toward the lower end of less than substantial harm. The Framework continues to state that where this type of harm arises, the development should be weighed against public benefit. 14. The development would have provided some economic benefit during its construction by way of employment opportunity however due to the scale of development, this would have been limited. Furthermore, the appellant notes that the footpath running alongside the development within the public realm has been repaired, although there is nothing before me to substantiate this. In any event, the main benefits arising from the development put forward by the appellant relate to the security of their property which would be in itself a private benefit. I am mindful that security and the prevention of crime is a material consideration, although no compelling evidence has been placed before me as justification for these measures on this basis. I am also not persuaded that the desired mitigation could only be achieved through the proposed measures. 15. The framework also sets out that the effect on the significance of a NDHA should be taken into account, and in weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect a NDHA, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset. Although I do not find that the development would cause any direct harm to the locally listed building, for the reasons set out above, the development indirectly harms the setting of the NDHA and therefore results in limited harm to its significance. 16. For these reasons, I conclude that the development would neither preserve the character nor appearance of the Conservation Area; and would harm the significance of the NDHA. As such, the development fails to meet the statutory tests as set out within Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and the requirements of the Framework. I further find conflict with Policies 37, 39, and 41 of the Bromley Plan which, amongst other things, aim to ensure development contributes positively to the existing street scene, respect the siting of Locally Listed assets, and respect and incorporate features contribute to the character and appearance of the area. Other Matters 17. The appellant has cited a fallback position through the Permitted Development (PD) process emphasising that a taller boundary wall could be erected in the event that this appeal fails. Whilst the appellant has not provided any drawings of an alternative development as a fallback, I am satisfied that it has been clearly defined as being in reference to a wall of up to 1 metre being erected along the front boundary. 18. The courts have held that there must be a realistic prospect of the alternative development occurring in order to establish whether there is a greater than theoretical possibility that a fallback development may take place. In this instance, and although the development appears to already be substantively completed, it is Appeal Decision 6000488 4 not beyond the bounds of possibility that the existing front boundary could be vertically extended. 19. However, although I accept that the fallback scheme would be taller than the existing front boundary wall, and as such would have a greater visual impact than the corresponding section of wall of the appeal proposal, it would still be significantly lower than the height of the gates and gate piers. As such, I do not find the suggested alternative scheme to represent a worsened fallback position and therefore I do not attribute any significant weight to this contention. 20. The appellant has also drawn my attention to a number of existing boundary treatments that are contended to be of similar merit to the appeal scheme. In the first instance, I am satisfied that the developments referred to are not located within the same context as the appeal site. Indeed, I recognise that the approach to the appeal site from the north along Denbridge Road has other examples of boundary walls with piers, although this is not mirrored by the specific context of the appeal site which is sited among a row of low boundary treatments and is highly visible due to its location at the end of the road. As such, whilst the developments at Nos. 13 and 16 Denbridge Road perhaps exhibit greater stature, they do not appear as incongruous boundary typologies within their siting nor are they as prominent. 21. I note that No. 19 St Georges Road (No 19) is sited along a different street than the appeal site, and in this instance, it is clear from the appellant’s statement that the dwelling and front boundary treatment are buffered by mature trees and vegetation. The relationship between the two are quite clearly different in the context of their configuration. Furthermore, and similar to other referenced development in the vicinity, I do not have the details of the circumstances in which the schemes have been constructed in order to establish a similar context. 22. In having regard to these developments, I am satisfied that they carry no significant weight to act as precedent for the appeal scheme. 23. The Council note that the outward opening of the gates onto the footway would be unacceptable for reasons of highway safety. However, whilst I recognise that this is a matter which could easily be resolved, it has not proved determinative to the outcome of this appeal, and there is no need to address the matter further. Planning Balance and Recommendation 24. I have carefully considered all additional matters raised by the appellant, but I am satisfied that the overall limited weight that would be attributed in support of the appeal scheme would not outweigh the great weight of which I have given the conservation of the designated and non-designated heritage assets. 25. Accordingly, I recommend this appeal should be dismissed. Finlay Bradford APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 26. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. Appeal Decision 6000488 5 Martin Seaton INSPECTOR