Part two storey and part 1 st floor rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 5 November 2025 by K Hole BA (Hons) Decision by L C Hughes BA (Hons) MTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 26 January 2026 Appeal Ref: 6000327 82 Birch Tree Avenue, West Wickham, Bromley BR4 9EL • 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 Glenn Graham against the decision of The London Borough of Bromley. • The application Ref is DC/25/00868/FULL6. • The development proposed is part two storey and part 1 st floor rear extension. 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 Issues 3. The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: i) The character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area; and ii) The living conditions of occupiers of 84 Birch Tree Avenue with regards to outlook. Reasons for the Recommendation Character and appearance 4. The appeal dwelling is in a residential area characterised by two-storey semi- detached pairs that share distinctive original design features such as bay windows and pitched roofs with timber framing to the upper front gable. Although there have been some interventions at roof level and to the side elevations, these design features have established a uniform street scene when viewed from the front. 5. Due to the positioning at the rear of the dwelling, the extension would be largely concealed from public view and as such there would be little visual impact on the street scene; any effects would be limited to rear views from neighbouring properties. However, while not visible from Birch Tree Avenue, development should respect its local character and context, regardless of its visibility from public vantage points. Appeal decision 6000327 2 6. The appeal dwelling has an existing single storey rear extension. The proposal would infill the remaining ground floor to the boundary with 84 Birch Tree Avenue (No.84) with a second storey above. Cumulatively, this would result in the whole of the rear elevation having been extended. The depth, height and width, together with the flat roof design, would appear as a bulky and dominant addition to the dwelling which would be at odds with the Council’s Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2023) which advises that extensions should be subservient in scale and that roof forms should relate to the character of the building. 7. The appellant has provided several examples of nearby dwellings that have been extended to the rear and that are of similar design and scale to what is proposed. However, having observed these examples on my site visit, I do not consider that they are directly comparable to the proposal before me. In the majority of these cases, the extensions have been constructed at both dwellings in the semi- detached pair. Due to this and their similar design and scale, they appear balanced with a new consistent rear building line being formed. The same balance would not exist between the appeal dwelling and No.84 which only has extensions to the ground floor. This would add to the appearance of disproportion between the dwellings with the bulk of the second storey being accentuated. Moreover, I do not have details of the policy context from when these other extensions were permitted. I have determined this appeal on its individual planning merits under current policies and guidance, and examples of other developments do not lead me to find that this proposal would be acceptable. 8. Accordingly, the proposal would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area and would conflict with Policies 6 and 37 of the London Borough of Bromley Local Plan (2019) (BLP) and Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021). These policies seek to ensure that new development, including residential extensions, are of a high-quality design, respect the scale and form of the host dwelling and are compatible with surrounding development. Living conditions 9. The appellant has shown on the drawings that the proposal would not breach a 45 degree line if taken from the centre of the window of the nearest first floor habitable room at No.84. At present, No.84 benefits from open and largely unrestricted views from this window. Despite the proposal not breaching a 45 degree line, and the main direction of outlook from the window facing onto the rear garden, due to the depth and height of the proposed extension and its proximity to the boundary, it would nonetheless be highly visible from this window. This would diminish the outlook of the occupiers of No 84, with the proposed extension creating a sense of enclosure that would not have existed before. 10. The proposal would therefore have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of occupiers of No 84 with regards to outlook. It would conflict with Policy 37 of the BLP which requires development to respect the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring dwellings. 11. The reason for refusal relating to living conditions on the council's decision notice also refers to Policy 6 of the BLP. However, Policy 6 relates to matters of character and appearance and not living conditions. While it has therefore not been Appeal decision 6000327 3 determinative in respect of this particular main issue, it does not diminish the conflict with BLP Policy 37. Other Matters 12. No objections to the proposal were raised by the current occupiers of No 84. However, I am mindful that ownership of properties can change and any harmful effects resulting from new development would be permanent. Conclusion and Recommendation 13. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. K Hole APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 14. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. L C Hughes INSPECTOR