Part single/part two storey side extension and part single/part two storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 14 October 2025 by A Wright BSc (Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 22 October 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000370 71 Crest View Drive, Petts Wood, Orpington, Bromley BR5 1BX • 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 Mr Nico Lomas against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Bromley. • The application Ref is DC/25/01069/FULL6. • The development proposed is described as ‘part single/part two storey side extension and part single/part two storey rear extension’. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the area; and • the living conditions of the occupiers of 69 Crest View Drive, with particular regard to outlook. Reasons Character and appearance 3. The appeal site comprises a two storey dwelling located in a residential area where semi-detached properties with original side projections and features are prevalent. As it is the first house on this side of Crest View Drive when travelling from this part of Frankswood Avenue, the upper flank of the house is visible from the road. Many dwellings have been extended, but the predominant character is of traditional suburban houses with extensions subordinate to the original structures. 4. The Council’s Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 2023 sets out guidance on extensions to buildings. It requires them to appear subservient in scale to avoid uncharacteristically large additions which can significantly change the appearance of a property and have a detrimental impact on character. 5. The proposal is for a sizeable two storey side and rear extension with some single storey elements to the front and rear. The largely hipped roof addition would be set in from the side boundary in accordance with Policy 8 of the London Borough of Bromley Local Plan 2019 (BLP), with the upper level set back from the front elevation of the house and the roof ridge below that on the existing dwelling. It is indicated that the finishing materials would match those on the current property. Appeal Decision 6000370 2 6. Nevertheless, as the scheme would create long high flank walls and side expanses of roof on the same plane extending well beyond the existing rear façade and roof, it would appear as a bulky addition which would not be subservient to the original building. Due to its scale, the proposed extension would be overly dominant and discordant in the street scene, particularly in views when travelling northbound along this part of Crest View Drive. 7. The proposal would result in the removal of a non-weathertight conservatory, providing essential additional living accommodation for the appellant’s family. It would make more efficient use of the land in accordance with national and development plan policies. Nonetheless, it has not been demonstrated that the accommodation could not be provided by a less harmful scheme. 8. There are other sizeable two storey extensions on houses in the vicinity. However, generally these are set further back from the dwelling frontages, have lower roofs, do not project as far back or are not in such a visible position as the appeal proposal. Thus, they are not comparable to the scheme currently before me. 9. Consequently, I conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. In this regard, it would conflict with Policy D3 of the London Plan 2021 (LP) and Policies 6 and 37 of the BLP. Together, these require residential extensions to be of a high standard of design that respect the scale and form of the host dwelling and are compatible with surrounding development, amongst other things. Living conditions 10. The appeal dwelling abuts the neighbouring semi-detached house at 69 Crest View Drive (No 69). The adjoining property has upper floor rear windows and a single storey rear extension. Houses on Frankswood Avenue lie perpendicular to the appeal property, with rear windows facing towards the site. 11. The proposal would include a single storey extension projecting 3.5m along the boundary with No 69, with the two storey addition projecting a similar distance but set back 1m from the boundary. There is no dispute that the appeal scheme would not cause a harmful loss of outlook from the neighbouring rear ground floor room. 12. At first floor level, the new extension would be closest to the bathroom window at No 69. As the two storey part of the proposed addition would be set away from this opening and the neighbouring bathroom has obscure glazing, the appeal scheme would not cause an unacceptable sense of enclosure for adjoining residents when using this room. 13. The proposed development would be visible from the rear upper floor bedroom window at No 69. Nevertheless, due to the space between this and the proposed two storey extension, the main outlook from this neighbouring bedroom would continue to be over the rear garden. As such, the appeal scheme would not dominate the outlook to occupants of this neighbouring property when using their rear bedroom. 14. An interested party is concerned about the impact of the proposal on light to their upper floor rear rooms. The proposed development would be within the 45-degree angle of the rear bathroom window at No 69, but as this is not a habitable room in which residents spend much time, increased overshadowing of this room would Appeal Decision 6000370 3 not be unacceptable. It would avoid encroaching on the 45-degree angle from the rear bedroom window at this property, ensuring that there would be no harmful loss of sunlight to this neighbouring room. 15. The Council suggests that the upper floor flank window to proposed bedroom 4 should be obscure glazed. However, given the significant distance between the extended appeal property and the houses on Frankswood Avenue, a clear glazed opening to this bedroom would not result in unacceptable overlooking of neighbouring rear rooms. 16. Therefore, I conclude that the proposed development would not cause a harmful loss of outlook to the occupiers of 69 Crest View Drive. In this respect, it would accord with Policy D3 of the LP and Policy 37 of the BLP where they require developments to respect the amenity of neighbouring occupiers, including delivering appropriate outlook. 17. The relevant reason for refusal refers to Policy 6 of the BLP, but this relates to the design of extensions, and I have found conflict with this policy regarding harm to the character and appearance of the area. Other Matters 18. It is indicated that the comprehensive nature of the proposal would minimise long- term disruption to neighbours, but this would not justify the harm caused to the character and appearance of the area. Conclusion 19. For the reasons given above, the proposal would conflict with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. The appeal is therefore dismissed. A Wright INSPECTOR