New floor will be added to the existing house at 11 Edward Road, as part of the planned development. The extension was carefully planned to fit in with the rest of the neighbourhood's style while having as little of an effect as possible on nearby homes

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 8 January 2026 by C McDonagh BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 20 January 2026 Appeal Ref: 6000540 11 Edward Road, Bromley BR1 3NG • 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 Duy Hung Phung against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Bromley. • The application Ref is 25/01121/ASDWEL. • The development proposed is described as ‘A new floor will be added to the existing house at 11 Edward Road, as part of the planned development. The extension was carefully planned to fit in with the rest of the neighbourhood's style while having as little of an effect as possible on nearby homes.’ Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. Class AA of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the GPDO) defines as permitted development the enlargement of a dwellinghouse by construction of additional storeys, subject to limitations and conditions. There is no dispute that the proposal would accord with the stipulations as set out under sections AA.1 and AA.2(2) of Class AA. 3. Section AA.2(3)(a) states the requirement for a developer to apply to the local planning authority for prior approval as to the considerations given in parts (i)-(iv) before beginning development. There is no requirement to determine such applications in accordance with the development plan, although in light of sub- paragraph AA.3(12)(b) I have had regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) insofar as it is relevant to the subject matter of the prior approval. Main Issues 4. Based on the above, the main issues in this appeal are whether prior approval should be granted having regard to the proposed development’s effect on the external appearance of the dwellinghouse and on the amenity of any adjoining premises. Reasons Appearance of the Dwellinghouse 5. The appeal site includes a detached ‘chalet’ style two-storey dwelling. Edward Road is formed of a diverse range of buildings of varying architectural styles, Appeal Decision 6000540 2 facing materials and scales. Most present as two or three storeys with a consistent front building line and regular gaps between buildings which add some rhythm to the street scene. The proposal seeks to add an additional storey to the host dwelling resulting in an increase in height of around 2.3m. 6. The extension would reflect the host building in terms of using matching brick and tiles while also continuing the roof pitch and general arrangement of windows to the principal elevation. The extension would raise the overall height of the building, although in adding an additional storey this is somewhat inevitable. The increase in height is minimal at 2.3m and from my observations on the site visit, the height would resemble most other properties on the same street. While it may protrude above the extension of No.13, it would not appear dominant or uncharacteristic against the main building of that adjoining premises due to the design and scale of the extension. 7. Overall, the proposal would not have a harmful impact on the principal elevation of the dwellinghouse or the street scene in accordance with section AA.2(3)(a)(ii) of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA of the GPDO. It would also accord with paragraph 135 of the Framework which advises development proposals should be sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment. Amenity 8. The appeal site adjoins the premises of No.9 to the southwest, which is a three- storey building evidently comprised of flats. I observed on the site visit that several windows on the side elevation of that building directly face the side of the host dwelling. The extra mass at first floor level of the host building, which would involve straightening the existing lean-to style side section of the host property, and additional storey at second floor level would be visible from these side windows of No.9. 9. The smaller windows appeared to be obscured from my vantage point and may serve bathrooms. However, the larger windows were not, and it is unclear as to what rooms they serve. As such, due to the lack of information on this matter I share the concern of the Council that the additional mass of the proposal could harmfully reduce the outlook from the side windows of No.9 for occupiers of these properties, harming the amenity of the adjoining premises as a result. 10. I have considered the design approach taken by the appellant with regards to obscure glazing to the rear windows to ensure no loss of privacy to adjacent residents. However, this was not a reason for refusal and would not resolve the concerns relating to a loss of outlook. 11. There is further concern regarding loss of light to occupiers of No.9. However, due to the relative positions of both properties, with No.9 to the southwest of the appeal site, and the minimal height increase of the proposal, any loss of light would be unlikely. 12. To conclude, the proposal would harm the amenity of occupiers of the adjoining premises of No.9 due to potential overbearing impact and loss of outlook caused by the additional storey extension. This would conflict with section AA.2(3)(a)(i) of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA of the GPDO as well as paragraph 135 of the Appeal Decision 6000540 3 Framework which advises that proposals should ensure a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. Conclusion 13. For the reasons given, the proposal fails to comply with paragraph AA.2(3)(a)(i) of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA of the GPDO. As such prior approval cannot be granted for development and the appeal is dismissed. C McDonagh INSPECTOR Appeal Decision 6000540 4