None

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 23 June 2025 by V Simpson BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 1st July 2025 Section 78 Appeal Ref: 6000154 Proposal: 11No. solar panels to dormer flat roof, 14No. solar panels to front first floor pitched roof & flat glass roof light to dormer roof at 1 Yester Drive, Chislehurst, Bromley BR7 5LR. Application Ref: DC/24/04731/FULL6 Decision – Allowed and planning permission granted. 1. The word ‘proposed’ does not describe an act of development. It is therefore omitted from the description of the proposal in the banner above. Reasons Issue – effect on the character and appearance of the area 2. The solar panels on the front of the dwelling would align well with each other. Together, they would have a rectangular form that would be centrally located and flush with the pitched roof they would form part of. Furthermore, and even though the roof light and the solar panels on the existing large rear dormer would project slightly above the ridge of the property, the solar panels would be regularly spaced to the sides and rear of the fairly centrally located roof light. As such, and although the development would add new features to the dwelling, it would not overwhelm or have a harmful cluttering effect on it. 3. The dwellings on the mainly residential street that the appeal site forms part of, are of a variety of different forms and designs, and they include a range of external materials and finishes. Moreover, and despite the house on the appeal site being part of a short row of similar houses, it has different external finishes to the others in this row. Although similar solar panels and roof lights are not commonly found nearby, the variety in the built form in the street is such that the modest development subject of this appeal would not be incongruous in it. 4. Consequently, the development would not harm the character and appearance of the area, and it would accord with the policies cited in the decision notice. Other matters 5. Because the development on the rear dormer would only be a little bit taller than the parts of the roof it would be erected on, it would not materially affect the quality of the outlook from, or the level of sunlight to, neighbouring properties. 6. The Government’s Planning Practice Guidance advises that, in general, the courts have taken the view that planning is concerned with land use in the public interest. 2 Consequently, I accord very limited weight to the effect that the development may have on the value of nearby properties. Conclusion 7. The proposal complies with the development plan as a whole and nothing indicates a decision otherwise. Conditions 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos; 1-YESTER-DRIVE-SP-01 Rev A and 1-YESTER-DRIVE-SP-03 Rev A. Reason: Certainty V Simpson INSPECTOR