Side/rear extensions

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 20 March 2025 by Alexander O’Doherty LLB (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 1 April 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000024 36 Chelsfield Road, Orpington, Bromley BR5 4DW • 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 Charlotte Meade against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Bromley. • The application Ref is DC/24/03642/FULL6. • The development proposed is described on the application form as, “Side/rear extensions”. 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. The appeal site comprises 36 Chelsfield Road (No 36), a semi-detached bungalow situated on the corner of Northfield Avenue and Chelsfield Road in a residential area. The semi-detached pair of which No 36 forms a part is clearly consistent with the architectural design, style, and proportions of the 3 other pairs of semi- detached bungalows which also front Chelsfield Road between Northfield Avenue and Edmund Road. 4. The proposed development would extend No 36 by approximately 6 metres to the side and approximately 3.6 metres to the rear. The proposed loft conversion element would incorporate 2 rear dormer extensions. The ridge height of the proposed roof extension would only be set lower than the main roof ridge line of No 36 by a minimal amount. 5. As such, No 36 would be extended by a significant margin, with a correspondingly large increase in its size and scale. Even taking account of the proposed set-back of the front elevation and the front roof slope, the proposed extensions would not appear subservient to No 36. Moreover, No 36 as extended would appear out-of- scale with 34 Chelsfield Road. The semi-detached pair of which No 36 forms a part would also appear noticeably out-of-keeping with the row of semi-detached dwellings along Chelsfield Road referred to above, thereby disrupting the architectural coherence of this group. 6. Furthermore, the considerable encroachment of No 36 into the garden of the plot would undermine the contribution which this prominent corner plot makes to the Appeal Decision 6000024 2 character of the area in terms of it breaking up the mass of built form in the area, which presently adds to the spacious feel of the locality. 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 a of Policy 6 of the Bromley Local Plan (adopted 2019) (Local Plan) which provides that, amongst other things, the design and layout of proposals for the alteration or enlargement of residential properties should ensure that the scale and form should respect or complement those of the host dwelling and be compatible with development in the surrounding area, and with parts a and b of Policy 37 of the Local Plan which provides that, amongst other things, developments will be expected to be imaginative and attractive to look at, of a good architectural quality and should complement the scale, proportion, form, and layout of adjacent buildings and areas, and positively contribute to the existing street scene. Other Matters 8. The proposed development would enhance No 36 for the benefit of its current and future occupiers. However, as this would mainly comprise a private benefit, it attracts little weight in support of the proposed development. Given the nature of the proposed development, any economic benefits arising via the construction phase would not likely be significant. It follows that the benefits of the proposed development, do not, either individually or collectively, outweigh the harm identified, nor the conflict with the development plan identified. Conclusion 9. For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole, the approach in the National Planning Policy Framework, and all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Alexander O’Doherty INSPECTOR