Single storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 August 2026 by A Chan Markovitz BA (Hons) Decision by T Law BSc MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 22nd September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6008638 35 Hodson Crescent, Bromley, Orpington BR5 4BS • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant approval required under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended). • The appeal is made by Mrs Ilona Crudu against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Bromley. • The application Ref is 26/00907/NOT. • The development proposed is “Single storey rear 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. Preliminary Matters 3. Under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended (the GPDO), planning permission is granted for the enlargement of a dwellinghouse subject to limitations and conditions. 4. Where an application is made for a determination as to whether prior approval is required for development which exceeds the limits in paragraph A.1(f) but is allowed by paragraph A.1(g) to Part 1, paragraph A.4(3) provides that the local planning authority may refuse the application where it considers that the proposed development does not comply – or that the developer has provided insufficient information to enable the authority to establish whether the proposed development complies with the conditions, limitations or restrictions that are applicable to such permitted development. 5. Paragraph A.4(7) to Part 1 requires the local planning authority to assess the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of all adjoining premises, taking into account any representations received. The Council refused the application as they considered that the proposed development would not comply with Article 3, Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, paragraph A.4(7) of the GPDO by unacceptably impacting the amenity of adjoining premises. 6. The Council has drawn my attention to the development plan policies it considers to be relevant to this appeal. However, prior approval is a different procedure to a Appeal Decision 6008638 2 planning application, and the GPDO does not require decision-makers to have regard to, or make decisions in accordance with, the development plan. 7. There is no dispute between the parties that the proposed single development would comply with all other limitations and conditions set out in paragraphs A.1, A.2, A.3 and A.4 of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO. From the evidence before me, I see no reason to disagree. Main Issue 8. The main issue is whether the proposed development complies with the relevant condition in paragraph A.4(7) regarding the effect of the proposed development on the amenity of 33 Hodson Crescent and 37 Hodson Crescent, with particular regard to outlook. Reasons for the Recommendation 9. The host dwelling is a two-storey semi-detached house typical of development in the surrounding area, the street scene of which generally comprises of semi- detached houses and short terraces with long rear gardens. The rear elevations of the host dwelling and neighbouring dwellings face uphill towards an undeveloped field. 10. The neighbouring property to the east, No. 33 Hodson Crescent, adjoins and is similar in appearance to the appeal building. One of its ground floor rear facing windows is located close to the shared stepped timber boundary fence, which extends to a height comparable with the window. There are numerous outbuildings positioned along the eastern boundary of No. 33’s rear garden, extending from the rear elevation to the rear boundary of the garden. As a result of the height of the boundary fence and the presence of these outbuildings, the occupants of No. 33 have a restricted outlook from their ground floor rear windows. 11. The proposed development would extend across the width of the host dwelling, with its side wall located close to the ground floor rear facing window at No. 33. Although the appellant has submitted that the appeal scheme has a lesser depth and height than the previously refused scheme, I find that its side wall would still extend significantly above both the window and the existing boundary fence at this part of the garden. Taken cumulatively, the proposal's siting and scale would cause it to appear as a dominant feature in views from No. 33's ground floor rear window, further restricting the occupants' already limited outlook and creating an enclosing and overbearing effect. 12. The neighbouring property to the west, No. 37, is an end-terrace house. There is a large side gap between the host dwelling and No. 37, and therefore the occupants of No. 37 appear to have a relatively unrestricted view from their ground floor rear windows. 13. Whilst the proposed development would extend above the shared boundary fence, it would not extend beyond the host dwelling’s west side elevation and would not reduce the side gap between the properties. Although the proposed development would extend above the shared boundary fence, it would not project beyond the host dwelling's western side elevation and would not reduce the separation between the properties. Consequently, the proposal would not appear prominent in views from No. 37's ground floor rear windows and would not obstruct the Appeal Decision 6008638 3 occupants' outlook. Whilst the proposal would not therefore harm the living conditions of the occupants of No. 37, its siting and scale would nevertheless harm those of the occupants of No. 33, particularly with regard to outlook. 14. For these reasons, the development would not comply with the condition in Article 3, Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, paragraph A.4(7) of the GPDO, and would harm the amenity of No 33, with particular regard to outlook. Other Matter 15. The appellant has submitted examples of single-storey rear extensions that have been granted prior approval in the area, however I do not have the full details of those cases and cannot be certain that they represent a direct parallel with this appeal. Nevertheless, in this case I find that the proposal’s excessive height and proximity to No 33’s window would comprise a visually intrusive structure that would considerably restrict the outlook of the occupants of No 33 and unacceptably impact their amenity. Conclusion and Recommendation 16. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. A Chan Markovitz APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 17. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. T Law INSPECTOR