Demolition of existing garage and rear extension, construction of part single and part two storey side and rear extension with associated internal alterations

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: 6008614 44 Saxville Road, Orpington BR5 3AW • 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 City Prime Property’s Ltd against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Bromley. • The application Ref is 26/00059/HPA. • The development proposed is demolition of existing garage and rear extension, construction of part single and part two storey side and rear extension with associated internal alterations. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for demolition of an existing garage and rear extension, construction of part single and part two storey side and rear extension with associated internal alterations at 44 Saxville Road, Orpington BR5 3AW in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 26/00059/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: Site location plan dated 08/01/26 (PP- 14600014v1) and drawing numbers 44SR(05) Rev A (Existing & Proposed Block Plan), 44SR(02) Rev A (Existing Elevations), 44SR(01) Rev A (Existing Floor & Roof Plan), 44SR(04) Rev C (Proposed Elevations), and 44SR(03) Rev B (Proposed Floor & Roof Plan). 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those of the existing building. 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 a two-storey semi-detached dwelling with a hipped roof that mirrors its attached neighbour. It occupies the edge of an interwar housing development of broadly consistent character, comprising similarly designed semi- detached and terraced dwellings. Although garages and other ancillary structures commonly occupy the spaces between properties at ground level, separation Appeal Decision 6008614 2 between buildings remains evident at first-floor level. Whilst there are examples of gabled roof extensions and two-storey side additions, these generally retain the visual breaks that contribute to the established rhythm of development. 4. The appeal dwelling incorporates an attached garage that extends to the side boundary, beyond which lies a later twentieth-century residential development of distinctly different character, including a two-storey flat block located adjacent to the appeal site. The flat block is set back from the common boundary, with communal space and a side access path occupying the intervening area. The setback is broadly comparable to that between the boundary and the flank wall of the appeal dwelling. Whilst the flat block sits just behind the front building line of the appeal dwelling, it extends further to the rear, beyond the dwelling's rear elevation. 5. As the Council's concerns relate to the proposed two-storey element of the development, rather than the single-storey extensions, my assessment focuses on the former. 6. The proposal would involve a two-storey side extension in place of the garage, flush with the front elevation of the appeal dwelling and continuing the existing hipped roof form. It would extend up to and along the side boundary, terminating at the rear elevation of the proposed single-storey rear addition. 7. Policy 8 of the Bromley Local Plan January 2019 (LP), requires extensions of two- storeys or more to normally maintain a minimum 1 metre separation between the flank wall of the development and the side boundary for the full height and length of the building. The supporting text explains that the policy seeks to maintain visual separation between buildings and avoid a cramped appearance or terracing effect that could harm the character of residential areas. 8. Additionally, the Council’s Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document adopted July 2023 seeks to ensure extensions and alterations to existing dwellings avoid uncharacteristically large additions which can significantly change the appearance of a property and have a detrimental impact on character. 9. However, the circumstances in this case differ from the more typical relationship between plots within the interwar development. The neighbouring flat block is a distinct, self-contained building set within its own grounds, such that the relationship between the two sites does not lend itself to the terracing effect that Policy 8 seeks to avoid. Furthermore, the separation that would remain between the flat block and the flank wall of the extended dwelling would be broadly comparable to visual breaks between buildings that characterise the interwar development. This would reduce any perception of the development appearing cramped. 10. Whilst the proposed extension would noticeably increase the scale and massing of the host dwelling it would continue the existing front building line and hipped roof form and would be viewed in the context of the pair as a whole and the wider area, where there are other examples of two-storey side additions. Moreover, whilst the extension would project beyond the rear wall of the appeal dwelling, its rearward extent would broadly correspond with that of the neighbouring flat block. 11. In summary, the appeal property lies at the interface between the interwar development and a later residential development of differing character. In these circumstances, the scale and massing of the proposed extension and its proximity Appeal Decision 6008614 3 to the side boundary would not result in a terracing effect, or appear so cramped, dominant, uncharacteristic or visually intrusive as to materially harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling or the surrounding area. 12. Accordingly, the proposal complies with Policies 6, 8 and 37 of the LP which, amongst other provisions, seek development that respects local character and delivers contextually appropriate design. Conditions 13. In addition to the standard time limit condition, I shall impose a condition identifying the approved plans in the interests of certainty. A condition requiring the external materials to match those of the existing dwelling is also necessary to safeguard the character and appearance of the area. Conclusion 14. For the reasons given above, I conclude the proposal accords with the development plan as a whole and the Framework, and there are no other considerations which outweigh this finding. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. P H Wallace INSPECTOR