Demolition of existing rear extension and construction of two-storey side extension, garage conversion to habitable space, addition of front and rear rooflights with elevational alterations and formation of new vehicular access

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: 6006114 27 The Brackens, Orpington BR6 6JH • 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 G Curtiss against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Bromley. • The application Ref is 25/05760/HPA. • The development proposed is described as “demolition of existing rear extension and construction of two-storey side extension, garage conversion to habitable space, addition of front and rear rooflights with elevational alterations and formation of new vehicular access”. 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. Reasons for the Recommendation 4. The appeal property is a detached two‑storey dwelling occupying a prominent and generous corner plot, fronting Warren Road and directly adjoining the principal access road serving the housing estate to the rear. Its siting at this junction renders the dwelling particularly visible within the streetscene, where it acts to visually frame the entrance to the adjoining estate. Development along this side of the street, together with the adjacent housing estate, exhibits a clear and consistent design typology which, through limited visible alterations, defined spacing between properties, and consistent setback from the highway, creates a pleasant sense of spaciousness and cohesion. This uniformity contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area. 5. The proposed side extension would project the full height and depth of the existing dwelling. As a result, it would significantly elongate the built form, creating a continuous block that would appear as dominant and incongruous. This would be at odds with the consistent scale and balanced proportions that characterise neighbouring dwellings. Furthermore, the extension would project closer to the highway, unacceptably reducing the established gap that is repeated opposite and Appeal Decision 6006114 2 is an intentional feature of the street scene. Its erosion would undermine the rhythm and spaciousness that defines the character of the area. 6. Of the cited examples, only limited information has been provided. They appear to occupy materially different spatial and visual contexts. In several cases the extensions appear subservient through step downs or setbacks from the original dwelling, and none appear to replicate the prominent open corner setting of the appeal site. In the absence of full planning histories, it is unclear under what policy context or design considerations these developments were permitted, or whether they pre‑date the adoption of the current design policies. 7. In the case of Number 10 Linden Close, whilst also on a corner plot, the side extension does not unacceptably erode the perception of spaciousness, nor does it compromise the legibility of the corner within the street layout. Whilst consistency in decision making is important, the factual and contextual differences in the examples cited are such that they do not alter my assessment or the harm I have identified in this case. From my own observations during the site visit, two-storey side extensions are not a prevailing feature in the vicinity of the appeal site. 8. Consequently, the appeal proposals would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the area. As such, they would conflict with Policies 6 and 37 of the Local Plan, London Borough of Bromley, Planning Division, 2019 and guidance contained in Policy DG5 (f) of the Urban Design Guide of the Supplementary Planning Document, 2023 which, amongst other things, require new development to be of a high standard of design that compliments the scale and form of the host dwelling, whilst respecting or maintaining the space or gaps between buildings. Conclusion and Recommendation 9. 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 10. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. John Morrison INSPECTOR