Roof alterations and roof extension to the rear of the house

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 17 June 2026 by P H Wallace BSc (Hons) DipMS MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 20 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6008498 9 Hayes Mead Road, Hayes, Bromley BR2 7HR • 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 Garry Hathaway against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Bromley. • The application Ref is 25/05868/HPA. • The development proposed is described as roof alterations and roof extension to the rear of the house. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for roof alterations and a roof extension to the rear at 9 Hayes Mead Road, Hayes, Bromley BR2 7HR in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/05868/HPA, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: D01 Rev 3 (Site Location & Block Plan), D06 Rev 3 (Existing Elevations), D02 Rev 3 (Existing Floor Plans), D04 Rev 3 (Existing Roof Plan), D07 Rev 3 (Proposed Elevations), D03 Rev 3 (Proposed Floor Plans), D05 Rev 2 (Proposed Roof Plan), and D08 Rev 3 (Proposed Sections). 3) The extension hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the south-facing dormer window as shown on the approved plans serving the bedroom which also benefits from a rear-facing dormer window has been fitted with obscured glazing, and no part of that window that is less than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which it is installed shall be capable of being opened. Once installed the obscured glazing and restricted opening shall be retained thereafter. 4) The extension hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the south-facing dormer window as shown on the approved plans serving the bedroom which does not benefit from a rear-facing dormer window has been made non- openable below a height of 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which it is installed. Once installed the restricted opening shall be retained thereafter. Appeal Decision 6008498 2 Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. Reason 3. The appeal property is one of two similarly designed detached bungalows with prominent hipped roofs, positioned at the end of a cul-de-sac comprising predominantly detached dwellings of one and two storeys. The surrounding properties vary in their size, design and appearance, with the appeal property being among the smaller-scale buildings within the street scene. The property is also set back from the road, such that the rear part of the building is less readily visible from within the cul-de-sac than is the case for a number of neighbouring dwellings. 4. The property includes a large flat-roofed rear extension which projects across the rear elevation and returns along part of one side elevation. The proposal would introduce a first-floor addition in the form of a mansard-style extension over the flat- roof and the rear slope of the original roof. Dormer windows would be inserted into all four roof elevations, including two side dormers facing No.7 and a smaller dormer in the front roof slope facing Hayes Mead Road. 5. Whilst the mansard-style roof would depart from the existing hipped roof form, introducing steeper roof slopes than those existing, the visual effect of the difference would be moderated by its alignment with the height of the existing ridge, which would lessen the visual contrast between the existing and proposed roof forms. This effect would be reinforced by the rearward siting of the extension and the set-back position of the dwelling, such that the extension would appear relatively recessive in public views from within the cul-de-sac. The proposed side dormers would also be modest in scale and projection and would be experienced in limited views from within the cul-de-sac. Although the street-facing dormer would introduce a feature not otherwise found within the cul-de-sac, its particularly modest scale, together with the set-back and resulting limited visibility of the roof on which it would be sited, would ensure it would appear unobtrusive and compatible. 6. In these circumstances, the existing hipped roof would remain the dominant roof form in public views, with the extension reading as visually secondary to it. In this context, and notwithstanding the extent of the proposed additions, the proposal would not appear dominant or visually intrusive in relation to the host dwelling when viewed from within the street scene and would not appear unduly discordant or incongruous in its surroundings, having regard also to the varied size, design and appearance of dwellings within the cul-de-sac. 7. Taking these factors into account, I conclude the proposed development would not unduly detract from the character and appearance of the host property or the area. On this basis, the scheme accords with Policies 6 and 37 of the Bromley Local Plan 2019 and the Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 2023, which, amongst other things, seek development that respects local character and delivers contextually appropriate design. Other Matters 8. The Council did not refuse the application on the basis of its effect on neighbours' living conditions, indicating that any overlooking concerns could be addressed by Appeal Decision 6008498 3 condition. Nevertheless, I have had regard to the third-party representations concerning the potential effect of the south-west facing dormer windows on their privacy. 9. From my site inspection, I find that the south-facing rear bedroom window would give rise to a degree of overlooking of the adjoining property. However, the impact would be satisfactorily mitigated by a condition requiring the window to be obscure glazed and fixed shut below 1.7m above floor level. In contrast, owing to its angle of outlook, the south-east facing front bedroom window would not afford direct views into neighbouring windows or private garden areas. Nevertheless, if unrestricted, the opening of the window could result in a perception of overlooking. Therefore, whilst obscure glazing is not required, a restricted opening condition would be necessary in the interests of neighbouring living conditions. Conditions 10. The Council has submitted a suggested condition, were I minded to allow the appeal. I have considered this in the light of the relevant tests and advice in the National Planning Practice Guidance (the PPG) and National Planning Policy Framework 2024. 11. In addition to the standard limit condition, a condition specifying the approved plans is necessary in the interests of certainty. Conditions requiring obscure glazing/fixed shut treatment of windows are also necessary to protect the neighbours privacy and make the development acceptable. Conclusion 12. For the reasons given above, I conclude the proposal accords with the development plan, and therefore the appeal is allowed. P H Wallace INSPECTOR