None

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 20 May 2025 by Juliet Rogers BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 06 June 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000157 Proposal: part one/part two storey front and side extensions at 21 Yester Road, Chislehurst, Bromley BR7 5HN Application Ref: DC/24/03580/FULL6 Decision – planning permission is granted. Reasons Issue – whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Chislehurst Conservation Area (CCA) area 1. The significance of the CCA, insofar as it relates to the appeal site, is predominantly derived from the sloping topography of the long valleys, often with steep banks, that surround the centrally located plateau of Commons. The backdrop of woodland areas to the built form, interspersed with substantial mature trees, envelop the large, detached dwellings commonplace along Yester Road, including the appeal site, on the steep slopes of one such valley. The broadly consistent scale of the properties in the area, together with their generous plots, significant, staggered setbacks, elevated positions relative to the road and woodland features create a spacious, verdant character. Although gaps between the side elevations of the dwellings are narrow, this contrast in the spatial relationship of the built form does not detract from the area’s sylvan character. 2. The proposed front extension would maintain the width of the existing gap between the host property and the side elevation of 19 Yester Road (No.19) adjacent, thereby retaining the relationship of the built form and visual connections to the woodland areas from the road. Although its façade would be sited closer to the road than this part of the existing dwelling, it would remain setback from the main front elevation, ensuring the proposed addition is subservient to the host property. This, combined with its modest increase in bulk, ensures the alteration would not harm the character or appearance of the dwelling or the street scene. 3. The proposed rear extension would also maintain the existing gap with 23 Yester Road (No.23). Nor would it extend beyond the rear building line of the host property, at either ground floor or first floor level, retaining the overall pattern of development in the area. 4. In accordance with my statutory duty1 to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area, I conclude that the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the CCA. It also accords with the policies cited in the decision notice. 1 As at s72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 Appeal Decision 6000157 2 Issue – the effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers of No.19, with regard to outlook and No.23, with regard to outlook, daylight and sunlight. 5. The proposed front two storey extension would be sited forward of the front elevation of No.19, whilst the size of the gap between the host property and the side elevation of No.19 is maintained. Although there is a bedroom window at first floor level in the façade of No.19 from which the proposed extension would be visible, any reduction in outlook as a result would be minimal and at an oblique angle. As such, it would not result in a harmful sense of enclosure or loss of outlook from this bedroom. 6. Whilst the proposed rear two storey extension would be visible from the closest first floor bedroom window of No.23, any reduction in outlook from it would be insignificant, particularly given the existing tall trees located on this boundary which already frame this view. Although one of the neighbouring property’s conservatories is located close to this side boundary, the extension would maintain the gap between the side elevation of No.23 and the host property’s existing side projection, together with continuing its height and roof slope angle. Therefore, any loss of sunlight reaching the garden area of No.23 or loss of daylight reaching the conservatory would largely be amalgamated into the shadows which already result from the existing tall trees on this boundary. 7. Given the distance between the proposed first floor terrace, the intervening trees and the sloping topography of the area, I see no reason to conclude that there would be a harmful loss of privacy to neighbouring occupiers of No.23 when the terrace is in use. Therefore, it is not necessary for me to impose a condition requiring a privacy screen to be erected. 8. The proposal would not harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers of No.19, with specific regard to outlook and No.23, with specific regard to outlook, daylight and sunlight and accords with the policies cited in the decision notice. Conditions 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. Reason: to comply with the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos: 21YESTER/P/A/002; and 21YESTER/P/B/002. Reason: to provide certainty. 3) The external materials of the extensions hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling. Reason: to preserve the character and appearance of the area, including the CCA. Conclusion 9. The development complies with the development plan as a whole and nothing indicates a decision should be made otherwise. Juliet Rogers INSPECTOR