Demolition of an existing garage and the construction of a part one/two storey front/side/rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 27 February 2026 By G Powys Jones FRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 11 March 2026 Appeal Ref: 6002131 38 Walden Avenue, Chislehurst, Kent, BR7 6EN • 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 James Lucas against the decision of the London Borough of Bromley Council. • The application Ref is 25/04423/HPA. • The development proposed is the demolition of an existing garage and the construction of a part one/two storey front/side/rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary and Procedural Matters 2. The application subject of this appeal was a resubmission following a previous refusal of permission. However, since the submission of the appeal the appellant has been granted planning permission for a modified scheme1. The material difference between the recently permitted scheme and that subject of appeal relates to the two storey bedroom extension proposed close to the neighbouring property at No 40. This extension was omitted in the permitted scheme. 3. The most recent decision is material to my considerations attracting significant weight since it represents the appellant’s fall-back. In this respect, in the light of the recent permission, most elements of the appellant’s appeal scheme are acceptable to the Council. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the proposals on the living conditions of the neighbouring residents at 40 Walden Avenue with particular reference to sunlight, overshadowing and visual impact. Reasons 5. The appeal property is a semi-detached dwelling set in an area displaying distinct suburban characteristics. It adjoins No 40, and the pair’s rear walls or elevations are in the same flat plane. The properties are separated by a fence, and the proposed single storey extension permitted by the Council would run virtually along the line of the fence. Above the single storey extension, the appellant proposes a 1 Ref 25/05646/HPA Appeal Decision 6002131 2 two storey extension so as to enlarge a bedroom. This would project about 1.5m from the rear wall, very close to, indeed almost on the common boundary. 6. No 40 has a large glazed opening at ground floor level and a window just above it close to the common boundary, and an area of external amenity space. Having regard to the orientation of the properties, the proposed extension would result in some loss of sunlight and overshadowing to these glazed areas during early summer mornings. This, combined with what I consider would be the overbearing impact and unneighbourly effect on the residents of No 40 of a two storey development built virtually on the common boundary, renders the scheme unacceptable. 7. I therefore conclude that this two storey element of the proposal would materially harm the amenities currently enjoyed by the neighbouring residents by reason of loss of early morning sunlight at certain times of the year and by the overbearing nature of the proposal. Accordingly, this part of the appellant’s proposals materially conflict with those provisions of policy 37 of the Bromley Local Plan directed to ensure development respects the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring buildings. Other matters 8. All other matters raised in the representations have been considered, including the references to the National Planning Policy Framework, and the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document on Urban Design. No other matter raised is of such strength or significance as to outweigh the considerations leading me to my conclusions. G Powys Jones INSPECTOR