First floor rear extension with internal and elevational alterations

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 13 January 2026 by S.Burch BSc MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 21 January 2026 Appeal Ref: 6001084 45 Romany Rise, Orpington, Bromley BR5 1HG • 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 Ian Matthews against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Bromley. • The application Ref is 25/03557/HPA. • The development proposed is a first floor rear extension with internal and elevational alterations. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for a first floor rear extension with internal and elevational alterations at 45 Romany Rise, Orpington, Bromley BR5 1HG in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/03557/HPA, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule. Main Issues 2. The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the area; and • the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with regard to outlook. Reasons Character and appearance 3. The appeal site relates to a two-storey detached property on Romany Rise. The property benefits from a single storey rear extension. The surrounding area is characterised mainly by two storey detached and semi-detached dwellings of a similar size and style. 4. The proposed first floor rear extension would be positioned above the existing ground floor rear extension and would not project beyond the footprint of the existing extension. The eaves height would match the existing dwelling however the ridge height would be sat down from the main roof line, ensuring subservience. The proposed roof form would respond to existing roof forms within the surrounding area and given the extensions positioning to the rear of the property, there would be limited views of it from within the street scene. Additionally, proposed materials would match the existing materials. Overall, the proposed development would be in keeping with the surrounding area. 5. The Council contend that there are no other two storey rear extensions in the surrounding area and in this regard, the proposed development would be out of Appeal Decision 6001084 2 keeping with surrounding development. However there appears to be another example of a two-storey rear extension at 25 Romany Rise, as demonstrated in the appellant’s statement of case. In any case, the scheme would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area, and a generalised concern that there are no other similar extensions in the area does not justify withholding permission in this case. 6. For the above reasons, the scheme would be well designed and in keeping with the character and appearance of the host property and area. It would therefore be in accordance with Policies 6 and 37 of the London Borough of Bromley Local Plan (BLP). Collectively, amongst other matters, these policies seek to ensure development is high quality and complements the existing dwelling and surrounding development. It would also comply with Design Guide Note DG5 of the Urban Design Guide- Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) in this regard. Living conditions 7. Given the separation distance between the proposed extension and the rear windows and garden area of 43 Romany Rise (No.43), any effect on outlook to this property would be limited and would not result in unacceptable harm. 8. The existing ground floor rear building line of the appeal property sits relatively in line with that of 47 Romany Rise (No. 47). Given the proposed extension would not project beyond the existing footprint of the ground floor rear extension, any effect to the outlook from the ground floor rear windows and garden area of No.47 would be negligible. 9. The evidence outlines how the first-floor rear window closest to the shared boundary on No.47, serves a bedroom. Nonetheless, as illustrated on the submitted plans, the proposed extension would not breach a 45-degree line taken from the centre of the bedroom window on No.47. In addition, the existing separation distances between the two detached properties, and the height of the roof of the extension, which would be set down from the main roof line, would minimise any effect on outlook. Given the separation distance between the proposed extension and the other first floor rear windows on No.47, I do not consider that the proposed extension would harm the outlook from these windows. Overall, the scheme would not result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of neighbouring residents at No.47, by way of outlook. 10. The Council has not drawn my attention to any other properties which would be affected by the proposed extension. Given the separation distances between the appeal property and other neighbouring properties, I see no reason to disagree with this. 11. To conclude, the scheme would have an acceptable effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with regard to outlook. The scheme would be in accordance with Policy 37 of the BLP. Amongst other things, this policy seeks to ensure that development respects the amenities of neighbouring occupiers. There would also be no conflict with Policy 6 of the BLP and Design Guide Note DG5 of the SPD in this regard. Appeal Decision 6001084 3 Conditions 12. In addition to the standard time condition, I have imposed a condition requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of certainty. I have also used a condition to ensure that the materials to be used match those on the existing building, as indicated on the proposed plans, in the interests of the character and appearance of the area. Finally, I have used a condition to ensure that the windows on the side elevation serving the first-floor bathroom are fixed shut and fitted with obscure glazing, in the interests of the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. Conclusion 13. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal is allowed. S.Burch INSPECTOR Appeal Decision 6001084 4 SCHEDULE OF CONDITONS 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: • Location Plan, No Drg No. • Existing and Proposed Plans, Drg No. 6376-25- PL001 P2 • Existing and Proposed Plans and Elevations, Drg No. 6376-25-PL002 P2 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the proposed development shall match those used on the existing building, as indicated on the approved plans. 4) The extension hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the side elevation windows serving the first-floor bathroom have been fitted with obscured glazing, and no part of those windows that are less than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which it is installed shall be capable of being opened. **END OF SCHDEDULE**