Two storey rear extension with first floor balcony and gable detail, replacement of existing rear conservatory with single storey rear extension including a double - pitched roof and rear gable end. Roof alterations to include raising the ridge height and elevational alterations to include replacement windows

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 16 December 2025 by Rachael Pipkin BA (Hons) MPhil MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 22 December 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000718 10 The Woodlands, Orpington, Bromley BR6 6HL • 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 Kirk Foreman of Alexa Developments against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Bromley. • The application Ref is 25/01376/FULL6. • The development proposed is Two storey rear extension with first floor balcony and gable detail, replacement of existing rear conservatory with single storey rear extension including a double - pitched roof and rear gable end. Roof alterations to include raising the ridge height and elevational alterations to include replacement windows. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. The description of development in the banner heading above is taken from the decision notice as this more accurately and succinctly describes the proposal. This change in description was agreed by the appellant during the application. Main Issues 3. The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on (i) the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with regard to loss of privacy; and (ii) the character and appearance of the host property and the area, including the Chelsfield Park Area of Special Residential Character. Reasons Living conditions 4. The proposed rear extension includes a modest first floor balcony, serving a first floor bedroom close to the boundary with 8 The Woodlands (No 8). The balcony would be wide but fairly shallow. It would nevertheless provide enough space to stand or sit outside from where there would be a direct view into the garden of the adjacent property, closest to the house where occupants could expect a reasonable degree of privacy. 5. The existing boundary vegetation, whilst reasonably tall, would not prevent views from the balcony which would be above the hedge. Moreover, vegetation cannot be relied on in the long term to provide sufficient screening. Consequently, my finding is that the balcony would unacceptably harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. Appeal Decision 6000718 2 6. The proposal would adversely impact the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers through unacceptable overlooking and loss of privacy. It would therefore conflict with Policy 37 of the Bromley Local Plan 2019 (the BLP) and Policy D3 of the London Plan 2021 which require development to respect the amenity of neighbouring occupiers, ensuring they are not harmed by loss of privacy. I have found no conflict with Policy 6 insofar as it concerns this main issue as the policy relates to matters of character and appearance. Character and appearance 7. Number 10 is a detached two-storey dwelling, with much of the first floor accommodation within the roofspace. It is located on a residential street characterised by large, detached houses which include a mix of both traditional and contemporary dwellings, of differing styles, ages and designs. Plots are large and well landscaped, with deep front gardens and driveways. Many properties, including the neighbouring dwelling at No 8, have been substantially extended. The site lies within the Chelsfield Park Area of Special Residential Character (the ASRC), which according to the BLP derives much of its character from the spacious, sylvan, landscaped and semi-rural setting combined with the wide variety in styles, sizes and designs of housing. This accords with my own observations on site. 8. The existing property has three front facing gables, with the central gable recessed. It is proposed to retain these features but raise them up to create a first floor storey. The gables would be different heights, with a modest step down from the tallest, closest to No 8, upslope of the property, towards Number 12 (No 12). The central gable would be recessed, as it is currently, and a fourth gable feature would be formed above the front door. Behind this, the main roof ridge would be raised by around 0.9 metres and would be extended rearwards with a section of flat roof. To the rear, the dwelling would have a two-storey appearance with a single-storey extension replacing an existing conservatory which I observed had already been removed at the time of my site visit. 9. The front elevation of the building would be significantly enlarged by increasing the bulk of the building at first floor level and raising the height of the gable features. These alterations would significantly change the character of the property. However, given the varied and substantial properties locally, the scale of the extended property and the formation of prominent front facing gables would be in keeping with development in the surrounding area. As such, it would be compatible with the ASRC. 10. Moreover, where it would be viewed within the streetscene, the additional height and bulk would help to address the considerable difference in scale between the relatively small appeal property and the substantially extended, large and tall contemporary dwelling at No 8. Although taller than No 12, with the eaves increased in height on this boundary, it would not be overbearing or appear unduly tall compared to this adjacent property. 11. Other matters were raised by the Council in its officer report but did not form part of its reason for refusal. These related to the balcony being out of character and unnecessary windows due to the design of the rear single-storey extension. However, I find no specific harm with these features in terms of the character and appearance of the proposed development. Appeal Decision 6000718 3 12. My finding is that the alterations to this dwelling, when viewed in the context of surrounding development, would not harm the character and appearance of the host property, the area or the ARSC. It would therefore accord with Policies 6, 44 and 37 of the BLP and Policy D3 of the London Plan 2021 (the LP) which together require a high quality of design, that respect the scale and form of the host property and surrounding development and contribute to local character. Planning Balance and Conclusion 13. I have found the proposal would be acceptable in terms of its design. However, the balcony would harmfully impact on neighbouring occupiers and this makes the scheme unacceptable. For this reason, the appeal should be dismissed. Rachael Pipkin INSPECTOR