Demolition of existing garage and construction of part one/two storey side/rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 April 2026 by Megan Thomas K.C. Barrister-at-Law an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 02 June 2026 Appeal Ref:6004506 5 Norsted Lane, Orpington BR6 7PG • 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 Owen P Johnson Davies against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Bromley. • The application ref. is 25/04682/HPA. • The development proposed is demolition of existing garage and construction of part one/two storey side/rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues in the appeal are the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of no. 4 Norsted Lane with particular regard to outlook. Reasons Character & Appearance 3. The appeal site is located on the west side of Norsted Lane close to its junction with Rushmore Hill. It is a semi-detached mainly two storey dwelling. Its semi- pair is to the north, and this is no.6 Norsted Lane. No.4 Norsted Lane is to its south and this is also semi-detached paired with no.3. The dwellings stand back from the Lane with frontages broadly in a line. Designated Green Belt lies to the west of the properties. 4. The appeal site has an attached single storey garage immediately to its south. The appeal proposal involves the demolition of the garage and the construction of a side extension which is predominantly two storeys high. At the rear of the extension there would be a single storey element with a mono-pitch roof. There would be a window in the north facing inner elevation of the extension at first floor level and another at ground floor level. 5. The proposed extension would be set about 1m away from the shared boundary with no.4. It would be broadly in line with the main front elevation. The roof would be hipped similar to the existing dwelling. The side extension would be particularly deep. It is acknowledged that it would consist of a single storey element at the garden end but nevertheless the two storey element is deep and Appeal Decision 6004506 2 would extend in depth beyond the existing rear single storey extension. Given the height and depth, it would appear excessive in scale and disproportionate to this semi-detached property. 6. I consider that the character and appearance of the host dwelling would be unacceptably harmed. The appellant has highlighted several other extensions which have taken place on nearby houses, some of which are long side extensions to semi-detached houses. I saw parts of these on my site visit. However, the two storey element combined with the single storey element and the combined depth and heights of the appeal proposal appear to me to be unprecedented in the immediate area. The existing pattern of development in the immediate area does not reflect what is sought in the appeal proposal and, taking into account all considerations, I consider there would be undue harm to the character and appearance of the area, in addition to the harm I have identified to the host dwelling itself. 7. On this first issue I conclude that the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area would be unduly harmed. The proposal would conflict with policy D3 of the London Plan (2021), and policies 6 and 37 of the Bromley Local Plan (adopted 2019). Living conditions of neighbours in respect of outlook and privacy 8. Whilst the proposed extension would be set away by about 1m from the common boundary with no.4 Norsted Lane, the two storey element of the proposed side extension would be deep. It would result in a significant loss of outlook for the occupants of no.4 when in the part of their rear garden nearest the house. Whilst the single storey element is likely to be less intrusive, the impact of the long unrelenting two storey side extension would loom over part of their rear garden and give them an unacceptable sense of enclosure. 9. In respect of the semi-pair of the appeal site (no.6 Norsted Lane), the appeal proposal includes a first floor window on the inward side of the two storey side extension from which there would be views of part of the rear garden of no.6 closest to the house. However, in a scenario where permission was being granted, this could be adequately mitigated by the imposition of a condition requiring the window to be non-opening and fitted with obscured glass. 10. On this issue, I conclude that the proposal would cause unacceptable living conditions for the occupants of no.4 Norsted Lane owing to loss of outlook when using their rear garden. There would be a breach of policy D3 of the London Plan 2021. Conclusion 11. Having taken into account all representations made, for the reasons given above, the appeal is dismissed. Megan Thomas K.C. Inspector