Demolition of existing garage and construction of part two and part single storey side extension with new dropped kerb access Decision

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 December 2025 by J Reed MPlan Decision by M Chalk BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 26 February 2026 Appeal Ref: 6000839 12 Randolph Road, Bromley BR2 8PU • 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 Mrs Karla Finikin against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Bromley. • The application Ref is 25/03105/HPA. • The development proposed is demolition of existing garage and construction of part two and part single storey side extension with new dropped kerb access Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for demolition of existing garage and construction of part two and part single storey side extension with new dropped kerb access at 12 Randolph Road, Bromley BR2 8PU in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/03105/HPA, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: PL02 Rev A and PL03. 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 Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area. Reasons for the Recommendation 4. The appeal dwelling is a two storey detached property occupying a generous corner plot. The surrounding area of Randolph Road consists of other detached dwellings in a variety of sizes, sitings, designs and compositions which contribute positively to the area’s character and appearance. 5. The proposed side extension would occupy a sizeable portion of the appeal plot’s width. However, it would be set down from the existing dwelling’s ridge height and set back from its front elevation also. In this respect the proposal would appear as Appeal Decision 6000839 2 clearly subordinate with the existing dwelling clearly legible as the original dominant built form to the site with the spaciousness of the plot also maintained. 6. The proposed extension also adopts matching design features to the host dwelling in its oriel window with its accompanying timber frame feature panel which would allow the appeal scheme to be read in conjunction with the architectural accents from the surrounding dwellings in the street scene. Whilst undoubtedly the appeal scheme will increase the size of the appeal property, I am not automatically persuaded that this would equate to a harmful impact. The resultant development would be read in conjunction with the differently sized properties in the surrounding area and contribute positively to its visual interest. 7. For the reasons as set out, the proposed side extension would contribute positively to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and thus the street scene. As such, it would accord with the relevant provisions of Policies 6 and 37 of the Bromley Local Plan (2019) which together seek amongst other things for development proposals to be of a high standard of design and layout. Other Matters 8. Concerns have been raised by third parties regarding the potential for the proposed development to harm the living conditions for neighbouring occupiers. Due to the separation distances, orientation and overall relationship the appeal dwelling has with its neighbours I do not consider there to be harm to neighbouring residential amenities by way of overbearing impact, loss of outlook, loss of light, over shadowing or overlooking. 9. I also note concerns from third parties that the development would set a precedent for similar development. Nevertheless, I have no substantive evidence before me of any prevalence of similarly laid out properties in the immediate area to indicate that the proposal would lead to increased pressure for other similar developments. In any case, other proposals for such side extensions requiring planning permission could be considered by the Council on their own merits. Conditions 10. Time limit and plans conditions are necessary and reasonable in order to provide certainty and for enforcement purposes. In addition to these the Council have also requested conditions relating to access layout and parking. I do not consider these to be necessary with such details outlined on the appellant’s site plan. 11. In regard to lighting for the proposed parking area as the appeal site is located on a residential street with adequate street lighting, I do not consider this to be necessary. 12. The council suggests conditions relating to hardstanding for wash down facilities and a Construction and Environmental Management Plan. However, as the appeal is a householder development the level of construction noise and mess is likely to be minor. I therefore do not consider these conditions to be necessary. 13. The Council have also requested conditions for surface water management and loose materials for the proposed driveway. No justification has been provided for these conditions, and I therefore do not consider these to be necessary. Appeal Decision 6000839 3 Conclusion and Recommendation 14. The proposal would accord with the development plan and there are no material considerations that indicate the appeal should be determined other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be allowed, and planning permission granted, subject to the above conditions. J Reed 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