First floor front extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 17 November 2025 by F Bradford BA (Hons) MRTPI Decision by M Chalk BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 18 February 2026 Appeal Ref: 6000533 44 Oxhawth Crescent, Bromley, BR2 8BL • 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 Sean Cadogan against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Bromley. • The application Ref is DC/25/01032/FULL6. • The development proposed is described as “a first floor front extension”. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a first floor front and side extension at 44 Oxhawth Crescent, Bromley, BR2 8BL in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref DC/25/01032/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 21087- 01 (Amendment B), 21087-L1, 21087-L2, 21087- L3. 3) The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling. 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. Preliminary Matters 3. The crux of the description of development has been taken from the application form however, in the interests of accuracy, it has been amended within the decision. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the local area. Reasons for the Recommendation 5. Oxhawth Crescent appears typically suburban by nature and is characterised by detached single and semi-detached two storey dwellings located on respective Appeal Decision 6000533 2 sides of the highway. Whilst many dwellings have undergone alteration and extension there is nevertheless an established rhythm of gaps between dwellings. The legibility of the original development pattern contributes to a sense of openness within the local area. 6. The appeal dwelling is two storey and is sited accordingly within the urban arrangement. It forms one of a pair of semi-detached dwellings and has previously been extended with a two-storey side and rear extension, which is sited within close proximity to the shared boundary of No. 46. The extension is set substantially back from the front elevation and therefore though the gap between these dwellings has been somewhat visually reduced, it is still legible. 7. The proposed development would result in the forward extension of the existing two-storey side element, sited behind the existing frontage of the single storey garage. The proposal would be suitably set back from the front elevation and set down from the roof ridge, maintaining the subservience observed in the existing configuration. 8. The proposed development would not comply with the specific technicalities of subsection ‘a’ of Policy 8 of the Bromley Local Plan. This sets out that the proposed development should retain a minimum 1 metre space from the side boundary of the site for the full height of the building. 9. However, the existing two-storey side extension is sited approximately 0.7 metres from the shared boundary. The proposed extension would only modestly increase the depth of this element, nor would it extend it further to the side. As such, the existing gap between the host dwelling and 46 Oxhawth Crescent would be retained and remain legible when viewed from the front and side. Therefore, despite conflict with this technicality of Policy 8, I do consider that the proposal would accord with its overarching objectives, which seeks to prevent a cramped appearance and a terracing effect from occurring. 10. The Council has drawn my attention to an extant planning permission at the appeal site, reference 23/03795/FULL6. I do not have all the details of that scheme before me, but I understand that it would be a two storey side extension with a larger separation gap between it and the boundary. Whilst this may be, the purpose of this appeal is to consider the proposal before me. Therefore, this extant permission would not be a pertinent matter and as such attracts limited weight that does not change my recommendation. 11. For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would not result in a cramped form of development and would therefore not harm the character and appearance of the local area. Notwithstanding the technical conflict with policy 8, I find no conflict with Policies 6 and 37 of the Bromley Local Plan or Policy D3 of the London Plan. These seek, amongst other things, to ensure extensions respect and are compatible with the host dwelling and surrounding area, do not result in a cramped form of development, and are of a high standard of design and layout. I also find that the proposal follows guidance as set out within the Urban Design Supplementary Planning Document (July 2023). Conditions 12. I have considered the conditions put forward by the Council and have amended the wording where necessary in the interests of clarity and simplicity. In addition to the Appeal Decision 6000533 3 standard time limit condition, I have imposed a condition requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans. This is in the interests of certainty. 13. In the interests of ensuring that the impact of development to the character and appearance of the area is acceptable, a condition is required which ensures that the proposed extension is constructed in materials which match those of the host dwelling. Conclusion and Recommendation 14. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed. Finlay Bradford APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 15. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed. M Chalk INSPECTOR