Appeal 6006775

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for demolition of existing garage and removal of chimney; extension of basement footprint, two-storey side and part one/two storey rear extensions with alterations to upper and lower rear patios and boundary fencing, new entrance porch at [site address] , Bromley, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/04772/HPA, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans: Site Location Plan at scale 1:1250 and [name] 25016- 01, 25016-02, 25016-03, 25016-04, 25016-05, 25016-06, 25016-07 [name], 25016-08, 25016-09, 25016-10, 25016-11, 25016-12, 25016-13 and 25016- 14.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no windows/dormer windows other than those expressly authorised by this permission shall be constructed above ground floor on the side elevations of the development hereby permitted.

The extension hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the first-floor shower room window to the side elevation has been fitted with obscured glazing to a minimum of Pilkington privacy Level 3, 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. Once installed the obscured glazing shall be retained thereafter.

The flat roof area of the ground floor rear extension hereby permitted shall not be used as a balcony, roof garden, or similar amenity area.

My formal decision uses the description of development that was given on the decision notice and which was repeated by the appellants on the appeal form. This gives an appropriate and more comprehensive description of the proposed works compared with that which was given on the application form, and which is quoted in the banner heading above.

At the time of my visit, I saw that work to extend the property to the rear had commenced by way of partial demolition and excavation to the rear.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the host dwelling and wider area.

The appeal property has a recent history of planning applications and appeals. I have been provided with copies of two recent appeal decisions and the plans relating to them, one from March 2025 (Ref 6000039), and the second dated October 2025 (Ref 6000256). Both appeals were dismissed. I have also been provided with a copy of a planning permission, dated 18 June 2025, ([name]/ 25/01187/FULL6), along with a set of the approved plans, for works described as ‘Demolition of side garage and chimney, construction of single storey side extension, first floor side extension, first floor rear extension, side roof dormer, renewal of existing rear garden raised patio and elevational alterations’. Taken together these demonstrate to me how the proposals for the property have been progressively altered from their original conception.

The appeal relates to a new proposal but which comprises modified elements to those that have formed parts of earlier schemes in one way or another. The previous decisions and reasonings are material considerations to which I have attached varying amounts of weight in my own reasoning.

The appeal property is a semi-detached, chalet-style two-storey dwelling with a distinctive catslide roof to the side and is set within a residential area comprising largely similar aged and styled properties, mostly evenly spaced with unattached neighbours separated by the width of a driveway to the side of each. Although many houses along [address] have been extended and altered in a variety of ways, including some substantial side additions at roof level, there remains a pleasing cohesion to the area’s architectural identity when observed within the street scene, with many of the dwellings’ core design features retained.

The proposal would include a first-floor side extension to the existing side roof slope, and a further two-storey side addition. The extensions would be stepped with a graduated roof arrangement. The first-floor addition with a full height pitched roof would be marginally recessed behind the front elevation to retain the impression of a catslide. This would be similar to many others I observed along [address] and, along with the retention of other original features to the front elevation, would ensure that the architectural identity of the building would remain legible. The two-storey side addition would be more deeply recessed by over 3m, with a subservient hipped roof over. By virtue of its position and subordinate form, I am satisfied that a 1m separation from the boundary with No 52 would show appropriate respect for the area’s development pattern and spatial standards. It is also significant that the size, siting, and bulk of this part of the proposal mirrors that which was approved by the Council in June 2025, which also included a repositioned entrance door facing [address].

A porch canopy with a mono-pitched roof is proposed over the front door. This would be a modest addition that would tie-in appropriately with the remodelled form of the dwelling and would be inconspicuous within the street scene.

The two-storey side extension would project rearwards and would wrap partially around the remodelled form of the dwelling’s rear elevation with its hipped roof. At ground floor it would be subsumed by a deeper single-storey addition across the full width of the extended dwelling with excavation of the property’s tiered garden beyond to expose a new face to an extension of an existing basement at lower ground level.

The accumulation of changes would significantly remodel the modest form of the original dwelling to the rear. Nevertheless, at ground and first-floor levels, the extensions would appear proportionate and balanced within their rear garden setting and similar to those seen on other properties nearby.

The new lower ground floor would be achieved by taking advantage of the area’s topography where garden levels fall significantly away from the backs of the houses to this side of [address]. The cumulative result would give the impression of a tiered, three-storey dwelling when viewed face-on from the rear. However, I share the view expressed by the Inspector in relation to the second appeal that this configuration would largely only be visible from within the garden of the appeal property. I have no reason to conclude any different and am satisfied that in this regard there would be no harm to the established character or appearance of the area.

Although there are similarities between some of the elements of the proposal with those that have previously been dismissed on appeal, I am satisfied that the scheme before me shows a refined and considered evolution beyond the appellants’ original concepts for extending the dwelling. The proposal as it now stands would be neither disproportionate nor visually incongruous but instead would appear sufficiently sympathetic and respectful to the original character and appearance of the dwelling and that of the wider area. There would therefore be no conflict with the aims and objectives of the Council’s Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document, adopted July 2023, or the requirements of Policies 6 and 37 of the Bromley Local Plan, January 2019, or Policy D3 of The London Plan 2021. Between them these seek to secure a quality of design, including for residential extensions, which respects the host dwelling and is compatible with the distinctive qualities of its surroundings.

I have noted further concerns from neighbours relating to the potential impact upon their living conditions. Nevertheless, I share the Council’s view that outlooks from the rear would not impose any additional degree of overlooking towards neighbouring amenity areas beyond that existing and which is typical for a residential context. The scale and depth of the extensions to the rear are comparable to that considered in the second appeal. I share that Inspector’s view that there would be no visual impact that would affect the living conditions of neighbours.

A first-floor window to the side elevation of the extension would serve a non-habitable space. A condition would reasonably control the nature of the glazing and would be justified in order to maintain privacy at No 52.

Suggestions that the proposal would lead to the development of a house in multiple occupation beyond that defined as a single-family dwelling are unfounded, as are those that there would be an unacceptable increase to on-street parking, which I note is not an opinion shared by the Council’s own assessment of the scheme relating to highways matters.

As works have already commenced, I have no reason to impose the standard time condition. A condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans is necessary for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. A further condition is necessary to ensure that the development is carried out in materials to match the existing building in order to safeguard the character and appearance of the area.

The Council has suggested some further conditions in the event of the appeal succeeding. I have also been mindful of the conditions attached to the extant planning permission, [name]/25/01187/FULL6.

Given that there would be no effect on highway safety and no increased on-street parking demand resulting from the proposed works, coupled with the extant planning permission, with the position of the side extension and entrance door determined and no further works proposed to the frontage as part of the appeal proposal beyond the modest porch, I am unable to find justification for a condition relating to details and provision of parking/garage spaces and turning space.

Ground floor side window and door openings are commonplace upon the dwellings along [address], including those facing each other upon Nos 50 and 52. Although the new ground floor windows would be closer to the boundary with No 52, they would look directly towards the boundary enclosure without impacting the existing levels of privacy between both properties. [name] consider it necessary to control the side glazing proposed at first-floor level, including also future openings, the condition does not need to refer to the ground floor. For further reasons relating to the safeguarding of privacy levels to neighbouring occupiers, a condition to control use of the flat roof over the ground floor extension is necessary. I have slightly altered the wording of the conditions suggested by the Council for reasons of clarity without affecting their purpose.

The approved plans clearly show the position of the side extension relative to the boundary with No 52. Condition 01 requires the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans. No further control of the extension’s position is required.

For the reasons given above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that there would be no harm to the character or appearance of No 50, or to the wider area. The appeal is therefore allowed.