First floor front and side extension

Appeal Decisions Site visit made on 5 November 2025 by K Hole BA (Hons) Decisions by M Russell BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10 February 2026 Appeal A Ref: 6000318 201 Chislehurst Road, Orpington BR5 1NP • 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 Jon Yee against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Bromley. • The application Ref is DC/24/04175/FULL6. • The development proposed is erection of new boundary wall and electric metal gates. Appeal B Ref: 6000319 201 Chislehurst Road, Orpington BR5 1NP • 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 Jon Yee against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Bromley. • The application Ref is DC/24/04174/FULL6. • The development proposed is first floor front and side extension. Decision - Appeal A 1. The appeal is dismissed. Decision - Appeal B 2. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for first floor front and side extension at 201 Chislehurst Road, Orpington BR5 1NP in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref DC/24/04174/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 numbers 2433-LP01 (Location Plan); 2433-BP01 (Block Plan); 2433- 001; 2433-002 (Proposed Plans); and 2433-003 (Floor Plans). 3) The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling. Appeal Procedure 3. 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. Appeal Decisions 6000318 & 6000319 2 Applications for costs 4. An application for costs has been made by the appellant in respect of Appeal A against the Council of the London Borough of Bromley and is subject of a separate decision. Preliminary Matters 5. These appeals relate to the same property and raise the same main issue. Therefore, while I have assessed each appeal on its own individual merits, to avoid duplication I have dealt with the appeals together, except where otherwise indicated. Main Issue 6. The main issue in both Appeal A and Appeal B is whether the proposed development in each case would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Chislehurst Road, Petts Wood Conservation Area (CA). Reasons for the Recommendation 7. The appeal site is located within the CA. Its significance derives from development in the area that was inspired by the 1930s Garden City movement characterised by spacious plots with generous gardens and large dwellings set back from the highway. The Supplementary Planning Guidance for the CA (SPG) confirms that the area remains largely as constructed. There are dwellings of a neo-vernacular influence which share many common design themes such as hipped roofs, regular spacing and consistent use of materials, including Red Kent Peg roof tiles and white painted render, and large open frontages with low boundaries. 8. The appeal property reflects this character comprising of a two-storey detached dwelling located at the end of a group of dwellings on Chislehurst Road that share a common style and have largely open frontages. Their design features include steeply sloped roof elements incorporating dormer windows, front projections often with gabled roofs and bay windows, semi-circular integral porches and consistent facing materials. This distinctive architecture and the open character of their frontages positively contribute to the significance of the CA and are reasons why the area is also recognised in the London Borough of Bromley Local Plan (2019) (LP) as part of an ‘Area of Special Residential Character’. Appeal A 9. The front boundaries at the appeal include high mature hedges and therefore the site is not as open as the majority of others in the CA. Even so, as acknowledged in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance for the CA (SPG) hedging is “in keeping” with the garden suburb atmosphere. Although providing some screening its soft appearance together with the two wide vehicle access points provide a verdancy and sufficiently open character which assimilates with the overriding spaciousness and ‘garden suburb’ qualities of the street. 10. I accept that the proposed boundary wall would sit at a height that the SPG suggests is generally acceptable. However, it would replace a very low wall, also adding sections that would extend back alongside the vehicular entrance points. This would notably increase the presence of walling on the appeal site. Notwithstanding their vertical bar arrangement, the metal gates across the vehicle Appeal Decisions 6000318 & 6000319 3 access points, would combine with the walling to unacceptably enclose the frontage. As a result, the proposed development would not harmonise with the prevailing open frontages of the CA. 11. The appellant has provided examples of walls and gates installed at nearby properties in support of their case. However, other than at 218 Chislehurst Road, it is unclear whether the majority of these examples benefit from planning permission and whether they were erected before or after the designation of the CA. In the case of No 218, the Council’s report suggests that there were some reductions in height to elements of a pre-existing wall and that there was also an existing railing, both of which were factored into the assessment. Therefore, the material considerations in that particular case were not identical to the appeal proposal. In any case, these limited examples do not persuade me that the appeal proposal would complement the prevailing characteristics of the CA. 12. Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires decision makers to have special regard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area. Given the proposal relates to one property, the harm to the CA would be at the lower end of less than substantial having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). The Framework therefore requires me to give great weight to this harm and to weigh the harm against any public benefits arising from the proposal. 13. The proposal has the potential to provide a private benefit in terms of an additional sense of security. However, other than an anecdotal reference to vehicle thefts in the area, there is nothing to suggest the appeal property is particularly at risk. In any case, I find that there are no public benefits before me sufficient to outweigh the harm identified to the CA. 14. The proposed development under Appeal A would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA. In that regard it would conflict with Policies 37, 41 and 44 of the LP and Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) which require development to be of a high standard of design and layout, to preserve the characteristics and appearance of conservation areas, to respect, enhance and strengthen the special and distinctive qualities of Areas of Special Residential Character and to positively respond to local distinctiveness. Appeal B 15. The proposed extensions would replace an existing catslide roof to one side of the host dwelling. Even so, with the retention of the catslide to the other side and the provision of a substantial side hip on the proposal, the extended dwelling would continue to positively reflect the style of the wider group. Moreover, the extensions would also incorporate a smaller scale replica of the dwelling’s main front gable with a ‘trademark gable slit’ and buttress supports which would further emphasise locally distinctive design elements. 16. While the mass of the dwelling would increase, the side extension would not increase its footprint, retaining the existing gap to the nearest side boundary. Together with the side hip this would ensure that the extended dwelling would not appear cramped alongside the adjacent dwelling continuing to respect the rhythm and pattern of development on this stretch of Chislehurst Road. The matching roof tiles and white painted render would also complement the neo-vernacular style of Appeal Decisions 6000318 & 6000319 4 neighbouring dwellings. As a result, the extensions would harmonise with the host dwelling and the CA. 17. The proposed development under Appeal B would therefore preserve the character and appearance of the CA. In that regard, it would accord with Policies 6, 37, 41 and 44 of the LP and Policies D3 and HC1 of the London Plan (2021) which amongst other things, seek to preserve conservation areas, respect, enhance and strengthen the special and distinctive qualities of Areas of Special Residential Character, require high standard of design and for residential extensions to respect the scale, form and materials of the host dwelling and surrounding area. Conditions 18. In relation to Appeal B, in addition to the standard time limit for commencement of the development, I have imposed a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans to provide certainty. I have also imposed a condition requiring the external materials to match the existing dwelling in the interests of safeguarding the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and the CA. Conclusion and Recommendation 19. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that Appeal A should be dismissed, and Appeal B should be allowed. K Hole APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 20. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis Appeal A is dismissed, and Appeal B is allowed. M Russell INSPECTOR