Two storey side and single storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 12 March 2026 by F Bradford BA (Hons) MRTPI Decision by L McKay MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 22 May 2026 Appeal Ref: 6002688 1 Ryecroft Road, Petts Wood, Orpington, Bromley BR5 1DR • 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 Dhooper against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Bromley. • The application Ref is 25/03857/HPA. • The development proposed is a two storey side and single storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. 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 Council raise no issue with regard to the single storey rear extension, and there is no evidence before me that would lead me to disagree. Accordingly, the main issue is the effect of the proposed two storey side extension on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and wider area. Reasons for the Recommendation 4. The appeal dwelling is one of a pair of semi-detached properties which demonstrate a strong symmetry in terms of their design, features, and their form. The catslide roof on both properties is a feature that dominates the form of both dwellings, contributing to their architectural quality. The design of the appeal dwelling and its partner is particularly appreciated when travelling along Kenilworth Road towards the appeal site, as well as from Ryecroft Road. 5. Ryecroft Road and Kenilworth Road are characterised predominantly by pairs of semi-detached residential properties. However, there are none within the visible context of the appeal dwelling that share its form and design and that of the adjoining property. It is in part the uniqueness of design of the semi-detached pair and the preservation of their original form arising from their visual balance that makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area. 6. The proposal would introduce a two storey side extension that, in terms of its mass, would be notably larger than that of the host dwelling. By virtue of this relationship, it would fail to appear as subservient and would instead be a bulky and dominant Appeal Decision 6002688 2 addition. The cumulative massing of the proposal and the original dwelling would result in the visual doubling of the size of the latter, particularly when viewed from the south of Ryecroft Road, and from Kenilworth Road. This overall bulk would not be satisfactorily mitigated by the set back of the proposal from the front elevation, set in from the boundary line and set down from the roof ridge. 7. The development and its harmful effect on the host dwelling would result in the loss of uniformity and visual unbalancing of the semidetached pair. The catslide roof feature would still be visible, however the bulk of the proposal would detract from and visually compete with that key feature. The existing positive contribution of the appeal dwelling would therefore be degraded, harming the character and appearance of the semi-detached pair and wider area. 8. For these reasons, the proposal would fail to accord with Policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan (2021) and Policies 6 and 37 of the Bromley Local Plan (2019). These policies, among other things, aim to ensure that development is of a high standard of design and positively contribute to the street scene and that residential extensions respect the scale and form of the host dwelling. 9. I further find inconsistency with the Bromley Urban Design SPD 2023 which sets out that the scale, massing and height of a proposed development should be considered in relation to its surrounding context, including adjoining buildings. Other Matters 10. I have been provided with information regarding developments at Numbers 27 Lakeswood Road and 47 Blackbrook Lane. No 27 is of different design to the appeal property and the extension to it, while wide, is set considerably lower than the main roof giving it a subservient appearance. No 47 has a catslide roof but also features a stepped front elevation. Its side extension is set back from the front elevation of the main dwelling and well below the ridge line. These developments are not therefore directly comparable to the appeal scheme. 11. Although 4 Ryecroft Road has a side extension, it is materially smaller in relation to the host dwelling than that proposed within this appeal and I therefore do not consider it to be a comparable scheme. These examples do not therefore justify granting permission for the appeal proposal, which would have materially different impacts. 12. I have had regard to the appellant’s personal circumstances to extend their property for a growing family and the existing internal and external conditions of the dwelling. Whilst these circumstances exist, I have no evidence to indicate that these outcomes could not be achieved through an alternative design that does not result in the harm I have identified. 13. Whilst changes have been made from the previous schemes, this does not preclude the existing proposal from being harmful in itself, the reasons of which are outlined above. Accordingly, this matter has not altered my recommendation. Conclusion and Recommendation 14. My above findings bring the proposal into conflict with the development plan, read as a whole. There are no material considerations that indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Appeal Decision 6002688 3 15. Therefore, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. Finlay Bradford APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 16. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. L McKay INSPECTOR