Appeal 6002443

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the demolition of garage, removal of chimney and construction of front extension including new front porch, part one/two storey rear and side extensions and elevational alterations at [site address] , [site address] , Bromley, Orpington [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/03499/HPA, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Existing Site Location Plan (Date: JUNE 2025), 03 (Date: MAY 2025), 04 (Date: JUNE 2025), 05 (Date: JUNE 2025), 05 (Date: JULY 2025).

The extension hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the window on the west side elevation has been fitted with obscured glazing, and no part of that window that is less than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which it is installed shall be capable of being opened. Details of the type of obscured glazing shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the window is installed, and once installed, the obscured glazing shall be retained thereafter.

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. Appeal Planning Officer 6002443

The description of development as detailed on the application form has been amended in subsequent documents. I have adopted the description as detailed on the Council’s decision notice, which details the proposal accurately and concisely.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the [site address] Area of Special Residential Character.

The host dwelling lies in the [site address] Area of Special Residential Character (ASRC) which is largely characterised by two storey detached, link-detached and semi-detached houses. The houses have a range of styles incorporating a variety of distinctive features, including hipped roofs, single storey side garages, two storey front gabled bay windows, and front porches. Many houses in the ASRC are set back from the highway behind front gardens and paved driveways of differing depths, creating a changing building line along the street. The gaps between properties are of vary in width and are generally larger at first floor level than at ground floor level due to the single storey side garages and hipped roofs prevalent in the area. Cumulatively, this gives the area an open feel and evolving character and appearance that contributes to the significance of the ASRC.

The host dwelling is a two storey detached house with a hipped roof, two storey front gabled bay windows, and a front porch. It is set further back from the highway than the neighbouring property, 79 Kingsway, behind their single storey linked garage pair. There is a narrower side gap between the appeal property and 75 Kingsway than between the appeal property and 79 Kingsway, reflecting the varied character and appearance of the area.

The proposed left side extension would preserve the existing narrow side gap with No 75. The existing separation distance between the host dwelling and No 79 is greater than 1 metre, however the detached linked garage, due to its prominent siting forward of the host dwelling, minimises the visible ground floor level gap. Whilst the proposed right side extension would conflict with Policy 8 of the Bromley Local Plan (LP) (2019) by reducing the gap to 1 metre, it would not create a cramped appearance as the demolition of the existing garage would enhance the visible ground floor level gap. This, together with the deep set back of the host dwelling, would maintain the open feel of the ASRC.

Whilst the proposed two storey side extensions would not be set back from the principal elevation, they would use matching materials, and would not project forward of the host dwelling’s two storey bay windows and front porch, preserving the prominence of these distinctive features from the street. Consequently, the proposed two storey side extensions would not harm the open character of the ASRC by appearing dominant in the street scene and thereby creating a cramped appearance.

For these reasons, the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the [site address] Area of Special Residential Character. Consequently, it would comply with Policies 6, 37 and 44 of the LP Appeal Planning Officer 6002443 (2019), Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021), and the guidance contained within the [name] Planning Document (2023). Together these seek to ensure that development is well-integrated with its surroundings, in terms of style and form, and does not result in unacceptable harm to the distinctiveness of the built environment, with particular regard to the high spatial standards significant to the ASRC.

In addition to the standard time period for commencement of the development, a condition to ensure that the development accords with the approved plans is necessary in the interests of certainty. A separate condition specifying materials is not necessary as they are specified on the application, Ref 25/03499/HPA.

The proposed first floor non-habitable window on the right side extension directly faces and is in proximity to two windows on the side elevation of No 79. Therefore, a condition specifying the fitting of obscured glazing on the proposed window on is necessary to protect the living conditions of the occupants of No 79, with regard to privacy.

The proposed garage on the ground floor of the right side extension would be physically and functionally connected to the existing dwellinghouse, having no windows, bathroom or kitchen of its own. I have no evidence before me to suggest that the proposed garage would be separated from the existing dwellinghouse and used as a separate, self-contained dwelling. Therefore, a condition restricting its use is not necessary.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed subject to the conditions listed above.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed.