Demolition of garage and rear conservatory, construction of single storey rear extension, first floor side and rear extension, loft conversion including two rear roof dormers, seven roof lights and elevational alterations

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: 23 December 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000883 36 Birchwood Road, Petts Wood, Orpington, Bromley BR5 1NZ • 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 & Mrs Shepherd against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Bromley. • The application Ref is 25/01330/FULL6. • The development proposed is Demolition of garage and rear conservatory, construction of single storey rear extension, first floor side and rear extension, loft conversion including two rear roof dormers, seven roof lights and elevational alterations. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for Demolition of garage and rear conservatory, construction of single storey rear extension, first floor side and rear extension, loft conversion including two rear roof dormers, seven roof lights and elevational alterations at 36 Birchwood Road, Petts Wood, Orpington BR5 1NZ in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/01330/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 nos A-9001 Rev P04, A-9003 Rev P03, A-9004 Rev P05, A-9200 Rev -02, A-100 Rev P03, A-101 Rev P03, A-102 Rev P03, A-111-P03, A-112 Rev P02, A-400 Rev P05, A-401 Rev P05, A-402 Rev P05, A-403 Rev P05, A-411 Rev P05 and A-412 Rev P05. 3) The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed in the materials shown on plan no. A-411 Rev P05 and A-412 Rev P05. Preliminary Matter 2. The description of development in the banner heading above and in my formal decision is taken from the decision notice as this more accurately describes the proposal. This change in description was agreed by the appellants during the application. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to the Chislehurst Road Conservation Area. Appeal Decision 6000883 2 Reasons 4. Birchwood Road is a suburban residential street characterised by large, detached properties set within generous plots. There are variations in the size and design of buildings which are predominantly in a neo-Tudor style, featuring brick and timber detailing and tall chimneystacks. The spacious pattern of development provided by the gaps between buildings, the design and detailing of dwellings contribute to the character and appearance of the area and the significance of the Chislehurst Road Conservation Area (the CA). 5. Number 36 is a sizeable detached two-storey dwelling sitting in a generous plot, set back and slightly elevated from the street. The building is of neo-Tudor design, with a substantial front gable incorporating mock timber framing, two front tile hung dormers to its steep hipped main roofslope and tall chimney stacks. Its architectural language and asymmetrical form are characteristic of development along Birchwood Road and the property makes a positive contribution to the significance of the CA. 6. The proposal would extend the main roof, raising its ridge by approximately 0.9 metres. An extension would be added above the single-storey garage by extending the hipped roof and inserting a front dormer to match those to the main roof. This would retain the asymmetry of the front elevation and replicate the architectural details of the existing building. The enlargement of the main roof would not be disproportionate to the size of the dwelling, maintaining the prominence of both the front facing gable and the existing chimneystacks. The existing roofscape is a strong feature of the building. However, the proposal does not add significantly more complexity to that which currently exists. Moreover, the substantial roofslope and irregular roofscape would not be dissimilar to other properties that I observed along the street and which contribute to the character of the area. 7. The footprint of the building would be considerably enlarged. However, it would sit comfortably within its plot. When viewed from the west, the increased massing of the building and rearwards projection of the extension, would be apparent. However, the hipped roof to the side extension with its ridge height being set down from the raised main roof would make it subservient and proportionate to the building. This, in combination with a significant part of the extension being single- storey, would also enable views beyond the extension, retaining a sense of spaciousness between and around properties. As such, the extended building would not appear uncharacteristically large. For these reasons, it would preserve the character and appearance of the CA. 8. The building would be extended rearwards with a substantial part two and part single-storey extension, replacing an existing conservatory. This would feature a rear facing gable and dormer windows in the extended and raised roof. The rear of the building has been altered considerably over the years, with some unsympathetic development which the proposal would replace with a more coherent form. This would make a limited contribution to the CA because it is not visible from the public realm, it would nevertheless improve this part of the building. 9. The proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area and would preserve the CA. It would therefore accord with Policies 6, 37 and 41 of the Appeal Decision 6000883 3 Bromley Local Plan 2019 and Policy HC1 of the London Plan 2021 which together require development proposals to be a high quality of design, of a suitable scale, respecting gaps between buildings, sympathetic to the significance of heritage assets and preserving and enhancing the characteristics and appearance of conservation areas. Conditions 10. The Council has not specified any conditions within its appeal submissions. I have imposed the standard time limit condition for commencement of development and a condition specifying the approved drawings in the interest of certainty. In the interests of the character and appearance of the development, a condition requiring the external materials to be those specified on the elevational drawings is necessary. Conclusion 11. For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed. Rachael Pipkin INSPECTOR