Single storey side/rear extensions with canopies over front and side doors, loft conversion with rear dormer, side roof window and two front roof lights and construction of detached garage to rear garden Decision

Appeal Decision Site Visit made on 3 September 2025 by G Sibley MPLAN MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 03 October 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000240 36 Chelsfield Road, Orpington, Bromley BR5 4DW • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Charlotte Meade against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Bromley. • The application Ref is DC/25/00361/FULL6. • The development proposed is single storey side/rear extensions with canopies over front and side doors, loft conversion with rear dormer, side roof window and two front roof lights and construction of detached garage to rear garden Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for single storey side/rear extensions with canopies over front and side doors, loft conversion with rear dormer, side roof window and two front roof lights and construction of detached garage to rear garden at 36 Chelsfield Road, Orpington, Bromley BR5 4DW in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref DC/25/00361/FULL6, subject to the following 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: Location Plan PP-12424788v1; Block Plan Drawing 2; Proposed Elevations Drawing 4; Garage Elevations Drawing 4; Proposed Plans Drawing 5 3) The external materials of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling. Preliminary Matter 2. The description of development from the application form referred to ‘side/rear extensions’ but did not include a garage. Plans were submitted identifying the garage that has been built on the appeal site. The Council determined the application on the basis that the garage was included as part of the development, and this is the development that was consulted upon. The appellant confirmed their agreement that the garage should be considered as part of the development scheme, and I have proceeded on that basis. Given that this is the development that was consulted upon, the parties would not be prejudiced by this approach. Main Issue 3. The main issue relevant to this appeal is the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the area. Appeal Decision 6000240 2 Reasons 4. The appeal property is a semi-detached bungalow located on a corner plot at the junction of Chelsfield Road and Northfield Avenue. The wider area is predominantly residential in character with a mix of semi-detached bungalows and two-storey properties. The appeal dwelling is the end property of a group of four similarly designed buildings fronting Chelsfield Road. They have hipped roofs, side entrances and front gables with mock-Tudor detailing. The balanced and symmetrical appearance of the semi-detached bungalows makes a positive contribution towards the character and appearance of the dwellings and the area. The appeal building is located on a corner plot and the space around the dwelling makes a positive contribution towards the open feel of the street scene. 5. The proposed side extension would be set back from the front elevation of the host dwelling and would follow the profile of the existing roof, as well as be set down from it. As a result, the front elevation of the host dwelling would remain dominant. Additionally, the form of the roof would retain the consistent appearance of the roof profile across the attached dwellings. The modest width of the extension would be around half the width of the host dwelling and as such this would ensure the scale of the extended dwelling would not unbalance the semi-detached pair. Additionally, the design of the extended dwelling would ensure the front gables on the two attached properties would remain as prominent features which would maintain the symmetrical appearance across them. 6. The rear extension would have a crown roof which would retain an element of the hipped roof on the host dwelling. Additionally, the modest depth of this single-storey extension, alongside the design of the roof, would ensure the extension would appear subservient to the host dwelling. The scale of the rear extension, similar in scale to that built to the rear of the attached dwelling, would also ensure it would not unbalance the appearance of the semi-detached pair when viewed from Northfield Avenue. Overall, the subservient scale and design of the side and rear extensions would not harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling or the attached property. 7. The proposed dormer window would be modest in scale, and because of this, the rear roof slope would not appear cluttered. There are other dormer windows in the area and as such, the view of this rear dormer window would not appear out of character in this context. The two rooflights within the front roof slope and the other within the side roof slope would be very limited in scale and would sit flush within the roof. The limited number and size of the rooflights and dormer window would ensure the roof would not appear cluttered. 8. Based on the evidence before me it is not evident that planning permission has been granted for the garage. However, it has been built similar to that shown on the submitted plans and is sited towards the rear of the plot and is accessed via Northfield Avenue. The garage is similar in scale and appearance to the neighbouring garage on Northfield Avenue. Given its limited height it does not appear unduly prominent within the street scene and appears subservient to the host dwelling. Consequently, the scale and design of the garage does not appear out of character in this context. 9. The scale of the proposed extension and garage would ensure the dwelling would retain a modestly sized amenity space for a dwelling of this scale, comparable to other properties in the area. Overall, the development would retain the openness around the dwelling and the open feel around this corner plot would be retained. Appeal Decision 6000240 3 10. Reference has been made to two previously dismissed appeals concerning the appeal property. The first included extensions, the subdivision of the plot, and a detached garage whilst the second related to extensions and roof alterations. The current proposal differs significantly to both schemes: the extension is noticeably smaller, does not include the additional front gable, and retains a larger amenity space. In the earlier appeals, the Inspectors found that the scale and design of the extension failed to appear subservient. However, for the reasons outlined above, I consider the design of this scheme to be subservient. The retention of amenity space also preserves the open character of the corner plot. Accordingly, I find the two schemes to be materially different to that before me, and this has led me to reach a different conclusion in this instance. 11. Therefore, for the reasons given above, the proposal would not harm the character or appearance of the area. Consequently, the development would comply with Policies 6 and 37 of the Bromley Local Plan, and Policy D3 of the London Plan. These expect development, amongst other matters, to achieve a high standard of design and respect local character and spatial standards. Other Matters 12. The Council’s Highway Development Engineer noted that the garage would be substandard in size. However, the Inspector in the previous appeal on site determined that there was sufficient parking available in surrounding roads and that the proposal would not cause harm to parking provision in the nearby area. Based on the evidence before me and what I saw on site, I find no reason to conclude differently on this matter. 13. The development does not propose alterations to the driveway to the front of the dwelling, with the garage shown taking access via Northfield Road and with on street parking available on that road. Given that the driveway to the front is an existing situation, the proposal does not affect whether vehicles can access this driveway. Conditions 14. Further to the statutory commencement condition, a condition requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the submitted plans is necessary in the interests of certainty. Furthermore, a condition requiring the external materials match those used in the existing building is necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the area. Conclusion 15. The proposed development would comply with the development plan, and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. G Sibley INSPECTOR