Demolition of existing conservatory and construction of single storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 26 March 2026 by S McIntyre BSc (Hons), CEng, MICE, MCIHT an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 28TH April 2026 Appeal Ref: 6005097 21 Wagtail Way, Orpington, Bromley BR5 3NB • 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 Constantin Savin-Lungu against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Bromley. • The application Ref is 25/04564/HPA. • The development proposed is demolition of existing conservatory and construction of single storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey rear extension at 21 Wagtail Way, Orpington, Bromley BR5 3NB in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/04564/HPA, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing no 250610-20A Existing and Proposed Plans and Elevations and 250610-21 Location Plan. 3) The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling. Preliminary Matters 2. The description of development was changed following submission of the planning application and the revised description displayed at the site for 3 weeks. The revised description is provided in the above banner and is the basis on which I have decided the appeal. Main Issues 3. The main issues are the effect of the proposal on (i) the character and appearance of the host dwelling; and (ii) the living conditions of occupants of the adjoining buildings with regard to outlook and light. Reasons Character and Appearance 4. The appeal site is a mid-terraced two storey house. There is currently a rear conservatory to the appeal property which would be demolished and replaced with the proposed extension. The garden extends approximately 10m beyond the Appeal Decision 6005097 2 proposed extension at full width and then tapers in width over approximately 3m. Overall, the property has a modest plain appearance when viewed from the rear garden. 5. The proposed extension would represent a modest increase in depth, and slight increase in height, compared with the existing conservatory, which does not appear to be excessive in scale against the host building. As such, the single storey extension would also appear subservient to the host building. Moreover, the use of matching materials would result in a scheme that would appear in keeping with the existing property. Accordingly, the scheme would not harm the modest character and appearance of the host building. 6. The Council’s officer report states that the depth of extension would exceed half the depth of the original dwelling and would appear excessive in scale, resulting in an overbearing addition to the host property. The depth of the extension would be a little over half the depth of the original dwelling, but there is no guidance before me that indicates that this is not acceptable. 7. The existing conservatory is not visible from the public highway and similarly the proposed rear extension would not be visible from the street. It would be visible from neighbouring gardens and first floor windows. There is no evidence before me that other extensions in the area are generally smaller than the proposal but in any event the proposal would be proportionate to the host dwelling. 8. The appeal proposal would not therefore adversely affect the character and appearance of the host dwelling and would not conflict with Policies 6 and 37 of the Local Plan which require development to respect and complement the host building. It would also accord with Design Guide Note DG5 of The London Borough of Bromley Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (the Urban Design SPD) which requires extensions to be subservient in scale. Outlook 9. There are high garden fences on the boundaries flanking the existing conservatory. The high fences extend a few metres beyond the extent of the existing conservatory before reducing in height. The appeal proposal is a single storey flat roof extension and the side views to the proposed extension would largely be limited to that visible above the fence, as is currently the case to the conservatory. The impact on the outlook for occupants of the adjoining houses, would be limited given the modest increase in depth and slight increase in height and would not appear unduly overbearing when viewed from the rear windows of the adjoining dwellings. 10. From locations in the gardens of the adjoining homes, beyond the extension, the rear elevation of the extension would be clearly visible. This is currently the case with the conservatory. The modest increase in scale compared with the conservatory would not significantly affect the outlook of occupants of the adjoining houses. 11. The officer’s report states that the extension would appear overly dominant and intrusive. The existing conservatory does not appear dominant and intrusive and the modest increase in scale of the proposed extension would not significantly affect the outlook from the adjoining dwellings. Appeal Decision 6005097 3 12. The appeal proposal would therefore not have an unacceptable affect on the living conditions of occupants of adjoining buildings with regard to outlook and would not conflict with Policy D3 of The London Plan 2021 that sets out that development should deliver appropriate outlook. Light 13. As the proposed extension would be only modestly greater in depth and slightly higher than the existing conservatory, any loss of light to No 23 Wagtail Way as result of the proposal would be minor such that the living conditions of the occupiers would not be unduly affected by the proposal. 14. Therefore, the appeal proposal would not unacceptably affect the living conditions of occupants of No 23 with regard to light and would not be in conflict with Policy 37 of the Local Plan which expects development to ensure occupants of neighbouring buildings are not harmed from inadequate light. 15. In summary, the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling or the living conditions of occupants of the adjoining buildings with regard to outlook and light. Conditions Time Limit 16. A condition relating to time limits is necessary in the interests of certainty. Materials 17. A condition is necessary for materials to match those used on the existing house to maintain the character and appearance of the area. Conclusion 18. For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed. S McIntyre INSPECTOR