Demolition of existing side extension and construction of a full bungalow uplift extension with first floor integrated annex extension with new front porch and elevational alterations

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 10 February 2026 by A Chan Markovitz BA (Hons) Decision by Tamsin Law BSc MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 27th April 2026 Appeal Ref: 6002114 25A Cromwell Road, Bromley, Beckenham BR3 4LP • 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 Ms Shirley Peters against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Bromley. • The application Ref is 25/03542/HPA. • The development proposed is “Demolition of existing side extension and construction of a full bungalow uplift extension with first floor integrated annex extension with new front porch and elevational alterations”. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the demolition of existing side extension and construction of a full bungalow uplift extension with first floor integrated annex extension with new front porch and elevational alterations at 25A Cromwell Road, Bromley, Beckenham BR3 4LP in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/03542/HPA, and subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin no 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: 6119-24-PL101 Revision P3, 6119-24-PL102 Revision P3, 6119-24-PL103 Revision P3, 6119-24-PL104 Revision P3. 3) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re- enacting that Order with or without modification), no windows other than those expressly authorised by this permission shall be constructed on the rear elevation. 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 the surrounding area. Appeal Planning Officer 6002114 2 Reasons for the Recommendation 4. The surrounding area is distinguished by two-storey detached and semi-detached houses and short terraces, with two-storey front gabled bay windows and porches with tiled roofs. Most houses on St James’s Avenue have white or cream render elevations, and many houses on Cromwell Road have red brick ground floor elevations and white, cream or brown render first floor elevations. Red hanging tiles on principal elevations and stained glass above front doors are prevalent decorative features in the area. Most houses are set back from the highway behind paved driveways or front gardens bounded by low walls or fencing. The set back of the houses, together with the side gaps between buildings, gives the area a spacious feel. 5. The host dwelling is a detached, single-storey house in a corner plot on the junction between Cromwell Road and St James’s Avenue. Its principal elevation is set back from Cromwell Road behind a paved driveway and front garden, and its side elevation is set in from St James’s Avenue behind a side garden, all bounded by tall timber fencing. The host dwelling has flat roofed bay windows, however as it is single-storey with pale brick elevations, it is not in keeping with the prevailing character and appearance of the area which is predominantly defined by two-storey houses with front gabled bay windows and light render or red brick elevations. Whilst there is more design variation amongst surrounding properties on the junction between Cromwell Road and St James’s Avenue, they are all two-storey and they have complementary decorative features, such as red brick elevations, red hanging tiles, or porches, that harmonise with the area. 6. The proposed development would result in a two-storey house that would be more in keeping with the prevailing height of dwellings in the area. The materials and design of the proposal would reflect the form and detailing of the two-storey front gabled bay windows that distinguish the area. Consequently, although the proposal would significantly change the appearance of the host dwelling, its form, materials and design would respond sensitively to the character of the area. 7. The wide side gaps between the appeal property and neighbouring properties on Cromwell Road would be retained. Furthermore, the proposed ridge would not extend above the ridge of 104 St James’s Avenue and much of the proposed extension would be built in front of the existing side wall of No 104, maintaining the spacious feel of the area. 8. The proposed first floor extension over the annexe would have the appearance of a subservient extension, reducing the overall bulk of the proposal. The ridge of the annexe would be significantly set down from the main ridge, and the first floor of the annexe would not extend the full depth of, and would be set back from the principal elevation of, the main house. Consequently, whilst the proposal would increase the height and mass of the host dwelling, it would not create a cramped appearance and would not erode the spaciousness of the area. 9. The Bromley Local Plan (2019) (LP) states that gaps between the side boundaries of properties should be at least 1 metre to prevent unrelated terracing. Whilst the gap between the rear boundary of the appeal property and the side boundary of No 104 is less than 1 metre, due to its unique siting the appeal property faces away from No 104. Consequently, a reduced first floor gap between the appeal property Appeal Planning Officer 6002114 3 and No 104 would not create a terracing effect, and the proposal would maintain the open feel of the area. 10. For these reasons, the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of either the host dwelling or the surrounding area. Consequently, it would comply with Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021), Policies 6 and 8 of the LP, and the guidance contained within the Bromley Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2023). Together these seek to ensure that development is well-integrated with its surroundings, particularly in terms of style and form, and does not result in unacceptable harm to the character and distinctiveness of the built environment. Other Matters 11. In their officer report, the Council concluded that the proposed development would not harm the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring properties, with regards to light, outlook and privacy. Given that the principal and side elevations of the appeal property are a significant distance from neighbouring properties, the only proposed first floor rear window would be fitted with obscured glazing, and the proposed first floor annexe extension would be set back from the existing rear elevation, I see no reason to disagree with the Council’s conclusion. A condition to restrict the insertion of windows on the rear elevation would safeguard the living conditions of the occupants of No 104. 12. Concerns have been raised about a potential change of use of the appeal property, and the proposal’s impact on the provision of bungalows in the area. I have not been provided with any evidence of an under provision of bungalows, and any change of use would require a separate planning permission. Furthermore, the loss of specific private views is not a planning matter of itself. I have therefore given these matters limited weight in my considerations. 13. Construction work could cause some disturbance regarding noise, parking and traffic congestion, however these effects would be for a temporary period only. Conditions 14. In addition to the standard time period for commencement of the development, a condition to ensure that the development accords with the approved plans is necessary in the interests of certainty. A separate condition specifying materials is not necessary as they are specified on the plans. 15. The proposed first floor extension would be in proximity to the rear garden of No 104. Therefore, a condition to restrict the insertion of windows on the rear elevation is necessary to safeguard the living conditions of the occupants of No 104. 16. The proposed annexe extension would be physically and functionally connected to the existing dwellinghouse. It would be used by a relative and would share a bathroom, kitchen, dining room, front door, driveway, and garden space, with the host dwelling. I have no evidence before me to suggest that it would be separated from the existing dwellinghouse and used as a separate, self-contained dwelling. Therefore, a condition restricting its use is not necessary. Appeal Planning Officer 6002114 4 Conclusion and Recommendation 17. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed subject to the conditions listed above. A Chan Markovitz APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 18. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed subject to the conditions listed above. Tamsin Law INSPECTOR