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: 8th July 2025 Section 78 Appeal Ref: 6000170 Proposal: proposed front two storey extension; rear and side two storey extension with part single storey extension at 21 Poyntell Crescent, Chislehurst, Bromley BR7 6PJ. Application Ref: DC/24/04526/FULL6 Decision – dismissed. Reasons Issue – effect on the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to the significance of the Chislehurst Conservation Area (the CA) 1. The appeal site is within a part of the Conservation Area, where fairly large modern housing on spacious plots is prevalent. The significance of the CA stems, at least in part, from its historic development as a ‘mid/late 19th century onwards, retreat from more industrialised parts of London. Residential development within this area has often been constructed within spacious plots, that address wide winding and verdant streets, with established woodland backdrops. The CA’s significance also stems from the form and design detailing of many of the houses within it, which are often influenced by the arts and crafts movement. 2. If the development were implemented, the house would align well with neighbouring properties, and its scale would not be dissimilar to other dwellings in the nearby area. Moreover, the woodland setting could still be understood through the gaps between and above the house on the appeal site and the neighbouring buildings. In these respects, the development would preserve the character and appearance of the CA. However, and although the dwelling on the appeal site is not an earlier example of housing within the CA, it displays features such as splayed eaves, and an asymmetrical form - both of which are typical of the arts and crafts vernacular. While the development would not be unduly prominent within the nearby streetscene, and it would use materials found elsewhere within the area, the arts and crafts influences of the dwelling would be eroded. As such, and albeit to a small extent, the development would reduce the contribution that the site makes to the significance of the CA. 3. Although the harm that would be caused would be at the lower end of less than substantial, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, great weight is given to the designated heritage asset’s conservation. 4. Economic benefits would arise during the implementation of the development, and the enlarged dwelling would provide the appellant and future occupiers with 2 improved living conditions from those available within the existing dwelling. However, given the small scale of the scheme, little weight may be attributed to the associated public benefits that would arise. Moreover, when taken together, these public benefits would not outweigh the harm that would be caused to the significance of the CA. 5. My attention has been drawn to several other nearby houses that have been enlarged and/or altered. However, the resultant houses are of materially different designs to the development subject of this appeal. These other developments do not therefore lead me away from my previous findings. 6. For the reasons given, the development would harm the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to the significance of the CA. In this respect, it would be contrary to the policies cited in the decision notice. Issue – effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of 19 Poyntell Crescent (no.19), with particular regard to outlook and light 7. Despite its proximity to no.19, only a small part of the rear extension would be visible through the rear and side-facing glazing in this neighbouring house. In part, this is because of the presence of the tall close-boarded fence and mature shrubbery on and close to the shared boundary between the 2 properties. The development would not therefore be unduly prominent from those rooms in no.19 from which it would be visible, and the occupiers of that property would retain a good standard of outlook over and above their sizable rear garden. 8. No.19 has a large amount of glazing facing both its rear garden and the rear garden of the appeal site. Despite the nearby boundary treatments and shrubbery, this glazing provides good levels of daylight and sunlight to the rooms served by it. The development would undoubtedly result in a small reduction in sunlight to some of this glazing - including to the nearest first-floor dormer window. However, and notwithstanding the depth and height of the proposed 2-storey rear projection, its location to the southeast of the house at no.19 means that this reduction would be limited to the morning only. Moreover, and although the appeal scheme would bring single and 2-storey development closer to the glazing in no.19, it would not be so close or tall that it would cause a harmful reduction in the level of daylight to the rooms this glazing serves. 9. Consequently, the development would not harm the living conditions of the occupiers of no.19, with particular regard to outlook and light, and it accords with the policies cited in the decision notice. Conclusion 10. Although no harm would be caused to the living conditions of the occupiers of no.19 with particular regard to outlook and light, this is a neutral consideration. 11. The proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole, and nothing outweighs this. V Simpson INSPECTOR