Construction of a first floor extension above existing garage to provide home office

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 November 2025 by L Cuthbertson Decision by Tamsin Law BSc MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 30TH January 2026 Appeal Ref: 6000650 84 Eden Way, Beckenham, BR3 3DH • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Darren Singh against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Bromley. • The application Ref is 25/01158/FULL6. • The development proposed is the construction of a first floor extension above existing garage to provide home office. 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 The main issues are: • The effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of nearby residents, with particular regard to outlook and privacy. • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding area. Reasons for the Recommendation Living conditions 3. The appeal site forms part of a terrace of dwellings which have garages to the rear. The garages are positioned at the rear boundaries of long gardens serving the terraced dwellings. These gardens provide important private amenity space for residents. The proposed extension would introduce a first-floor element in a location where structures are currently single-storey and relatively unobtrusive. Additionally, the appeal site’s garage already projects further into the garden than most others, meaning it sits closer to the rear boundaries and rear facing windows of adjacent properties. Appeal Planning Officer 6000650 2 4. The vast majority of the existing garages along this boundary are single-storey, and it appears that any windows are at ground-floor level and do not offer views into neighbouring gardens or dwellings. The garages appear to be used primarily for storage rather than as habitable spaces. Consequently, there is currently limited overlooking from this direction, giving residents the reasonable expectation of privacy in their rear-facing rooms and gardens. The proposed first-floor extension, and introduction of windows and office space, would fundamentally alter this relationship by creating sustained opportunities for overlooking into neighbouring gardens and rear facing windows. 5. While there is an existing degree of mutual overlooking due to the terraced layout, the proposed first-floor extension would introduce an additional and more intrusive level of overlooking. Its elevated position would enable views – or the perception of the ability to view – into the first-floor windows of neighbouring dwellings, which are likely to serve bedrooms. The extension would allow direct views into neighbouring gardens from a higher vantage point, increasing the extent and angle of visibility, compared to the existing situation. This perceived loss of privacy would undermine the sense of seclusion within private spaces and bedrooms for the neighbouring properties thus harming the living conditions of the occupiers. 6. The proposal would therefore fail to safeguard the living conditions of nearby residents, contrary to Policy 37 of the Bromley Local Plan (2019) (BLP) and Policy D3 of the London Plan (LP) which together seek, amongst other things, to protect residents from the impacts of overlooking and loss of privacy. Character and appearance 7. The garages along this row are not visible from public vantage points and display limited uniformity in design, with variations in height, materials, roof forms, and overall condition. The existing garage at the appeal site is well maintained and among the largest in the row. 8. While the proposed first-floor extension would increase the mass and scale of the structure, the garages are not prominent in public views and there is no consistent pattern of design or scale along the row. Whilst it would be the largest garage, given the variety of scales and design combined with its secluded location, the extension would not appear dominant or incongruous and therefore would not result in harm to the character or appearance of the host property or wider area. 9. The proposal would therefore comply with Policy 6 of the BLP and Policy D3 of the LP, which together seek, amongst other things, to ensure development respects local character. Conclusion and Recommendation 10. For the reasons set out above, the proposed development would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area and to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. Therefore, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. Lucy Cuthbertson APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Appeal Planning Officer 6000650 3 Inspector’s Decision 11. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. Tamsin Law INSPECTOR