None

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 21 May 2025 by Juliet Rogers BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10 June 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000121 Proposal: single storey ground floor rear extension at 61 Plaistow Grove, Bromley, Kent BR1 3PB Application Ref: DC/24/04465/FULL6 Decision – dismissed. Reasons Issue 1 – effect on the character and appearance of the area, with specific regard to the locally listed appeal property 1. Although there is no statutory duty regarding a non-designated heritage asset such as the appeal property, the Framework1 does require a balanced judgement to be made in determining the effect of a proposal on the significance of such an asset. In respect to the appeal property, its significance, insofar as it relates to the proposal, is predominantly derived from the quality and age of the architectural features and materials it possesses. 2. The incorporation of a chamfered roof design to one side of the full width extension, to reduce the massing of the extension at its boundary with 63 Plaistow Grove (No.63) results in a contrived and discordant pitch in relation to the host property and its neighbours. Despite the use of matching materials, the proposed sliding doors would exacerbate this lack of harmony with the host property, thereby harming the character and appearance of the locally listed building. 3. While the rear of the properties along Plaistow Grove are largely hidden from view in the street scene, nonetheless the proposal would be experienced by nearby residents when in their gardens and from the service yards associated with the commercial units on Plaistow Lane. 4. The development associated with the grant of a certificate of lawfulness for a proposed development2 comprises an extension with a smaller footprint, flat roof and incorporates fenestration details more reflective of the host dwelling. It would, therefore, be less harmful to the character and appearance of the area and the non-designated heritage asset than the appeal scheme. 5. Similarly, the 2006 approval’s3 use of a rearward sloping roofscape and coordinated design with an identical extension to No.63 would result in a more 1 National Planning Policy Framework 2 Council ref: DC/24/03281/PLUD, dated 24 October 2024 3 Council ref: DC/06/03622/FULL6, dated 24 November 2006 Appeal Decision 6000121 2 sympathetic and subservient additions than the scheme before me, despite extending further to the rear than the appeal proposal. 6. Although other properties nearby have been extended and altered, including 67 Plaistow Grove, I have little substantive details before me regarding the status of these properties, the age of any respective consents and the planning regime in place at the time they were approved or constructed. Nevertheless, their presence does not justify the approval of unacceptable development. 7. The proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area, including the locally listed host property, contrary to the policies cited in the decision notice. Issue 2 – effect on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers of No.63 with respect to outlook and privacy 8. Whilst taller than the existing close board fence on the boundary with No.63, the eaves of the proposed extension at this point would be no higher than the brick lintels above the neighbouring property’s rear elevation fenestration. Therefore, combined with its chamfered roof, any loss of outlook experienced by neighbouring occupiers from the rooms served by the rear on the ground floor openings would be minimal. 9. No openings are proposed in the side elevation of the proposal thereby maintaining the level of privacy likely to be experienced by neighbouring occupiers when using their rear garden. 10. The proposal would not harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers of No.63, with respect to outlook and privacy, and accords with the policies cited in the decision notice. Planning Balance and Conclusion 11. Economic, social and environmental benefits from the increase in the appellant’s accommodation and the modernisation of the appeal property would be small given the size of the scheme. 12. The proposal’s harm to the character and appearance of the area, including the locally listed appeal property, and the associated development plan conflict, is not outweighed by its neutral effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers of No.63. 13. Consequently, the proposal is contrary to the development plan as a whole and nothing indicates a decision should be made otherwise. Juliet Rogers INSPECTOR