Two storey side extensions and front porch extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 13 April 2026 by S Manson DipTP MRTPI Decision by John Morrison BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 30 April 2026 Appeal Ref: 6006038 4 Grosvenor Road, Petts Wood, Orpington BR5 1QU • 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 Alex & Hayley Woodman against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Bromley. • The application Ref is 25/05319/HPA. • The development proposed is described as “two storey side extensions and front porch 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 main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, with specific regard to the Petts Wood Area of Special Residential Character (ASRC). Reasons for the Recommendation 4. The appeal property is a detached dwelling located within an attractive and verdant residential area characterised predominantly by large detached and semi‑detached houses set within generous plots. Dwellings are generally set back from the highway behind low brick walls, with landscaped front gardens and driveways. While retaining a strong sense of individuality, the buildings display a coherent architectural language, including rendered elevations, hipped roofs and frequent gabled two‑storey bay windows. Importantly, there are consistent and generous gaps between dwellings, reflecting the original garden suburb layout and contributing to a pronounced sense of spaciousness which form part of the special and distinctive qualities of the ASRC wherein the site lies. 5. The host dwelling displays an asymmetrical composition with clear and consistent gaps to neighbouring properties, reflecting the established pattern of development along the street. While the proposed side extensions would be set marginally below the main roof ridge and stepped back to a degree from the principal elevation, their full two‑storey height and combined width would introduce a broad and visually assertive form. This would materially alter the scale and proportions of the original Appeal Decision 6006038 2 dwelling, resulting in a frontage that would appear more symmetrical and significantly wider than is characteristic of detached houses within the street scene. 6. As a consequence, the proposal would markedly reduce the perceived openness between the appeal property and its neighbours, unacceptably eroding the sense of visual separation that forms a defining characteristic of the ASRC. The appeal proposals would appear incongruous within its surroundings, introducing an overly dominant and plot‑filling form of development that would undermine the area’s established spatial qualities. 7. For these reasons, the proposal would result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area, and the ASRC. As such, it would conflict with Policies 6, 37 and 44 of the Local Plan, London Borough of Bromley, Planning Division, 2019; Policy D3 of the London Plan, 2021 and guidance contained in the Bromley's Urban Design Supplementary Planning Guidance, 2023. Amongst other things, these seek to ensure that development is of a high standard of design, that compliments the host dwelling, and respects, enhances and strengthens the special and distinctive qualities of the ASRC. Conclusion and Recommendation 8. The appeal scheme would conflict with the development plan and material considerations do not indicate a decision other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. S Manson APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 9. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. John Morrison INSPECTOR