First floor side extension over the existing garage, single storey rear extension, part garage conversion and elevational alterations to include lean to roof across front elevation with a new porch with gable roof

Appeal Decision Sire visit made on 27 October 2025 by F Bradford BA (Hons) MRTPI Decision by Rachel Hall BSc MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 30TH January 2026 Appeal Ref: 6000350 27 Selby Close, Chislehurst, Bromley BR7 5RU • 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 Chris Spokes against the decision of the London Borough of Bromley Council. • The application Ref is DC/25/01092/FULL6. • The development proposed is a first floor side extension over the existing garage, single storey rear extension, part garage conversion and elevational alterations to include lean to roof across front elevation with a new porch with gable roof. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Main Issue 3. The Council and appellant agree that the elements of the proposed development comprising the single storey rear extension, part garage conversion and elevational alterations to include lean to roof across front elevation with a new porch with gable roof are acceptable. I see no reason to disagree. 4. Accordingly, the main issue is the first floor side extension’s effects on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and street scene. Reasons for the Recommendation 5. Selby Close (the close) comprises dwellings that appear to have been designed and built at a similar time, to a similar typology. In the immediate vicinity of the appeal site there are two distinct dwelling types, differentiated by their design and overall massing. The character within the close is spacious, afforded through the setback of dwellings from the highway as well as the voids between dwellings above their garages. 6. The appeal dwelling, and the other dwellings of the same design (Nos 25 and 18), are uniform in terms of their overall appearance as a group, with an adjoining single storey garage that projects forward from the main house. Given the relatively high density of development in the close, the gaps above these single storey garages makes an important contribution to the spacious character of the area. The Appeal Planning Officer 6000350 2 consistency of design between the appeal dwelling and that of Nos 25 and 18 also contributes positively to the character and appearance of those dwellings and the wider cul-de-sac. 7. The proposed development would introduce first floor living accommodation above the garage that would project forward from the main house and would thus be a prominent addition. This first floor projection with a gable roof would significantly increase the dwelling’s mass as seen from the close. This would be particularly prominent within the street scene due to the position of the house fronting on to the road at the end of the close. In addition, it would result in a harmful loss of spaciousness by occupying the void above the garage that currently makes a positive contribution to the character of the road. 8. Although 20 and 22 Selby Close have two storey side extensions, those dwellings are of a different typology to the appeal dwelling. Furthermore, those extensions are discreetly positioned between two dwellings located in the cul-de-sac’s corner, without a direct frontage on to the close. In addition, those extensions are set back from the building line of the main houses and have side facing gables. As such, they appear subservient to the main house and considerably less prominent than the appeal scheme. Consequently, those extensions, and an Inspector’s support for a previously proposed extension at No 20, are not sufficiently similar to the appeal scheme to alter my reasoning. I have further had regard to the development granted at No 16. However, in that case, the extension does not project forward from the main house. Consequently, the nature of that extension and its effect on the street scene is not sufficiently comparable to indicate that I should find this proposal acceptable. 9. I observe the resemblance between the design of the extension to the appeal dwelling and those of Nos 1 and 6 Harton Close. However, Nos 1 and 6 are not positioned directly at the end of Harton Close and therefore occupy much less prominent positions. Moreover, the houses on Harton Close appear more widely spaced such that even with those extensions a sense of spaciousness is retained. The schemes at 1 and 6 Harton Close are thus sited within a different urban context than that of the appeal dwelling. Consequently, whilst consistency in decision-making is important, for the reasons given the presence of those schemes does not lead me to a different conclusion on this main issue. 10. Accordingly, I conclude that the proposal would harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and street scene and therefore would conflict with policies 6 and 37 of the Bromley Local Plan (January 2019). These policies, among other things, aim to ensure the scale and form of development respects that of the host dwelling and surrounding area and that it contributes positively to the street scene. Conclusion and Recommendation 11. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. Finlay Bradford APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Appeal Planning Officer 6000350 3 Inspector’s Decision 12. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. Rachel Hall INSPECTOR