Construction of upward extension to provide one additional storey above the existing dwellinghouse (maximum height of 10.94m)

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 26 November 2025 by R Cahalane BA(Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 18 December 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000369 77 Kings Road, Biggin Hill, Bromley TN16 3XY • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant approval required under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended). • The appeal is made by D. Vieira De Nobrega against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Bromley. • The application Ref is DC/25/00858/ASDWEL. The development proposed is construction of upward extension to provide one additional storey above the existing dwellinghouse (maximum height of 10.94m). Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. In the banner heading above, I have utilised the description of development from the decision notice rather than the application form, as the decision notice description provides some further detail. I have however deleted its detailed reference to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (“the GPOD”), to avoid duplication. I have determined the appeal on this basis, which does not prejudice interested parties. 3. Under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA of the GPDO, planning permission is granted for the enlargement of a dwellinghouse by construction of additional storeys, subject to limitations and conditions. The Council accepts that the proposal would accord with the limitations and conditions set out under paragraphs AA.1 and AA.2 (2) of Class AA, including heritage constraints. 4. However, the condition set out in paragraph AA.2 (3) requires the developer to apply to the local planning authority for prior approval as to several specified issues before beginning development, including the external appearance of the dwellinghouse. This appeal follows the Council’s decision to refuse prior approval, as it determined that the proposal would be harmful in respect of that issue. 5. The Council’s reason for refusal also states that the proposal would “detract from the existing characteristics of the streetscene, thereby resulting in detrimental harm to visual amenities”. Case law1 has held that where prior approval is required in relation to the effect on the external appearance of a dwellinghouse, the decision maker can consider this effect both in terms of on the building itself, and on its surrounding area. I have therefore determined the appeal on this basis. 1 CAB Housing Ltd v SSLUHC & Broxbourne BC [2023] EWCA Civ 194. Appeal Decision 6000369 2 Main Issue 6. The main issue is whether prior approval should be granted as to the external appearance of the dwellinghouse, including the impact on the surrounding area. Reasons 7. The appeal site (No 77) is a two-storey dwelling on the end of a terrace of four properties facing Kings Road, set at significantly lower ground than this road. No 77 is also set back and slightly lower in ridge height than the other end of the terrace, but is nonetheless readily visible when travelling south on Kings Road. 8. The proposed upward extension would retain and reflect No 77’s architectural features, materials and fenestration. On the northern approach along Kings Road, it would largely be obscured by the Flying Machine Public House (PH). It would however be significantly higher than the ridgeline of the existing dwelling and the adjoining terrace. This would significantly disrupt the rhythm of the terrace. 9. Given the modest two storey footprints of No 77 and other properties forming the terrace, the increased height would result in an inharmonious horizontal emphasis that would appear visually jarring alongside the adjoining terrace facing Kings Road. Although taller three-storey terraced properties are directly opposite, sited on higher ground, this appears to form the original estate design, and therefore does not mitigate the dominant and adverse visual impact of the proposal. 10. During my site visit, I also found that the proposal would be visible from the Dawell Drive cul-de-sac, which has a public footway leading to Kings Road. When viewed from this cul-de-sac turning area, the proposal would appear significantly higher than the shallow pitched roof of the PH immediately to the other side of No 77. From closer vantage points on Kings Road, opposite and north of No 77, the proposal would also appear notably higher than the PH. 11. The proposal would not comply with Policies 6 and 37 of the Council’s Local Plan (adopted 2019), insofar as they are relevant to this matter of prior approval. These policies are however not in themselves determinative, as by introducing Class AA permitted development rights, the Government clearly envisaged that there would be a degree of change to certain residential properties. That being said, such rights are qualified by the need to apply for prior approval, as set out above. 12. For the above reasons, I conclude that prior approval should not be granted, due to the harmful effect that the proposal would have on the external appearance of No 77, including the impact on the surrounding area. Other Matters and Conclusion 13. The proposal would meet the required space for the appellant’s large and growing family. However, there is no evidence before me that this scheme is the only or least harmful way, in terms of external appearance, to meet this need. In any event, as I have found that the proposal would harm the external appearance of No 77 and the surrounding area, for that reason I am dutybound to conclude that prior approval should not be granted. I must therefore dismiss this appeal. R Cahalane INSPECTOR