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: 10TH July 2025 Section 78 Appeal Ref: 6000180 Proposal: Single storey rear extension at Cherry Tree Cottage, Kemnal Road, Chislehurst, Bromley BR7 6LY. Application Ref: DC/24/04031/FULL6. Decision – dismissed. Reasons Issue – effect on character and appearance of the Chislehurst Conservation Area (CA) 1. The appeal site forms part of the Chislehurst CA. The significance of which stems, at least partially, from the historic rural estates in it that retain a predominantly open and rural character. These also contribute positively to the setting of the more built- up parts of the CA, and help to affirm the links between them and the countryside. 2. The appeal site includes an attractive and rather richly detailed house as well as associated gardens and outbuildings. All of which are at the edge of a wider cluster of buildings that form part of a historic estate. The use and amount of development on the site and in its setting stop the site from having a strong rural character. Nevertheless, its large rear garden and the nearby land/fields to the north and east give the site an open, spacious, and verdant character and setting. For these reasons, and as part of the wider cluster of buildings and nearby land, the site makes a positive contribution to the significance of the CA. 3. The extension would have a ‘boxy’ form; large flat roofs; and large floor-to-ceiling glazing panels. As such, and even if it were finished to a high standard using high- quality materials, its resultant form and appearance would jar with the more dainty and intricate detailing and the steeply pitched roofs that are found on the existing dwelling. Furthermore, and albeit the extension would be much lower than and to the rear of the existing house, it would substantially enlarge its footprint. For these reasons, the extension would visually compete with the existing dwelling, and it would have a harmful urbanising effect on the appeal site. As such, and albeit to a small extent, the development would reduce the contribution that the site makes to the significance of the CA, and it would fail to preserve or enhance its character or appearance. 4. Although the harm that would be caused would be at the lower end of the scale of less than substantial, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), great weight is given to the designated heritage asset’s conservation. 2 5. Economic benefits would arise during the implementation of the development, and the enlarged dwelling would provide the appellant’s family and future occupiers with improved living conditions. It would also reduce the amount and spread of built development within the Green Belt. 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. 6. For these reasons, the development would harm the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to the significance of the CA, and it would be contrary to the related policies cited in the decision notice. Issue – whether inappropriate development in the Green Belt 7. So far as they are relevant to this appeal, policies 49 of the Local Plan1 and G2 of the London Plan2 are broadly consistent with those parts of the Framework that relate to the Green Belt. Local Plan policy 51 prescribes that extensions or alterations to dwellings in the Green Belt will only be permitted where certain criteria are met. Given that the extension would result in a net increase in the floor area of the original dwellinghouse by more than 10%, the development would not accord with this policy. However, Local Plan policy 51 does not allow for consideration of circumstances where the exception at Framework paragraph 154. g) would apply. In this respect, this policy is inconsistent with the Framework, and limited weight can therefore be given to it in this case. 8. In determining appeal reference APP/G5180/W/24/3339919, the Inspector found that several properties, including Cherry Tree Cottage and associated outbuildings, were previously developed. I have no reason to take another view and proceed on the basis that the appeal site constitutes previously developed land. The development would reduce the total area and spread of buildings on the site, and the height of the extension would be broadly comparable to the structures that would be removed. As such, the development would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. 9. Consequently, the development would meet the exception at paragraph 154. g) of the Framework, and it would not comprise inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Although the scheme conflicts with Local Plan policy 51, it accords with policies 49 of the Local Plan and G2 of the London Plan, and in this case, these latter policies are most relevant to this issue. Conclusion 10. The development would reduce the amount and spread of built form in the Green Belt, and it would improve the living conditions of the occupiers of the property. However, given the scale of the scheme, the associated benefits would be small. 11. The proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole, and nothing outweighs this. V Simpson INSPECTOR 1 London Borough of Bromley – Local Development Framework – Local Plan – January 2019 2 Mayor of London – The London Plan – The Spatial Strategy for Greater London – March 2021