Two storey side and rear extensions with raised roof height, flank dormer window/roof lights with elevational alterations, demolition of garage without complying with a condition attached to planning permission DC/22/01138/FULL6 dated 1 July 2022

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 September 2026 by B Pattison BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 22nd September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6010085 16 Whitecroft Way, Beckenham, Bromley BR3 3AG • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the development of land without complying with conditions subject to which a previous planning permission was granted. • The appeal is made by Mr & Mrs Dove against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Bromley. • The application Ref is 22/01138/S73A2. • The application sought planning permission for Two storey side and rear extensions with raised roof height, flank dormer window/roof lights with elevational alterations, demolition of garage without complying with a condition attached to planning permission DC/22/01138/FULL6 dated 1 July 2022. • The condition in dispute is No 2 which states that: The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in complete accordance with the plans approved under this planning permission unless previously agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. • The reason given for the condition is: In order to comply with Policy 37 of the Bromley Local Plan and in the interests of visual and residential amenity. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for Two storey side and rear extensions with raised roof height, flank dormer window/roof lights with elevational alterations, demolition of garage without complying with a condition attached to planning permission DC/22/01138/FULL6 dated 1 July 2022 at 16 Whitecroft Way, Beckenham, Bromley BR3 3AG, in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 22/01138/S73A2, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawings: WW-992-PD-R-0400/B; WW-992-PD-R-0300/C; WW-992-PD-R- 0200/B. 2) The materials to be used for the external surfaces of the building shall be as set out in the planning application forms and / or drawings unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 3) The development shall not be occupied until any side facing first and second floor windows/rooflights have been obscure glazed to a minimum of Pilkington privacy Level 3 and shall be non-opening unless the parts of the window which can be opened are more than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which the window is installed and the windows shall subsequently be permanently retained in accordance as such. Appeal Decision 6010085 2 Preliminary Matter 2. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was updated on 17 August 2026. Although I have made my determination against the updated national policy context, the relevant changes to the Framework are not fundamental to matters which are determinative to the outcome of this appeal. Background and Main Issue 3. Planning permission1 was granted in July 2022 for two storey side and rear extensions with raised roof height, flank dormer windows/roof lights with elevational alterations, demolition of garage. 4. In July 2024 planning permission2 was granted for a proposal to vary the design of the approved extensions with amendments which included changes to the design of the side and rear extensions. The description of development was “Variation of condition 2 of permission granted under reference 22/01138/FULL6 for Two storey side and rear extensions with raised roof height, flank dormer window/roof lights with elevational alterations, demolition of garage to allow the substitution of revised plans for amendments to the approved scheme (proposed amendments comprise the side and rear extensions to be part one/two storey rather than two storey, and without raising the roof height and the flank dormer window/ rooflights)”. 5. The two storey side extension has been constructed. However, it features a flat roof rather than a pitched roof as shown on the approved drawings. The appellant is seeking to vary condition 2 of the original planning permission (Council Ref: 22/01138/FULL6) to allow the substitution of amended drawings, which include changes to the design of the two storey side extension. Specifically, in relation to this appeal, the amended drawings show a pitched roof that is broadly similar in design to that approved under the most recent planning permission (Council Ref: 22/01138/RECON) which sought design amendments. However, the proposal involves raising the eaves of the side extension’s roof so that they would align with the eaves height of the main roof of the host dwelling. 6. Consequently, the main issue is the effect that the variation of condition 2 would have on the character, appearance and significance of the Park Langley Conservation Area (the CA). Reasons 7. The appeal property is a large, two storey dwelling located in a residential area within the CA. The CA features a mix of spaciously laid out detached houses, many of which were developed in the early twentieth century in a Garden City character. The Supplementary Planning Guidance for Park Langley Conservation Area (SPG) notes that whilst houses were often grouped in blocks of four or five that shared a similar design approach, very rarely were any two adjacent houses identical in layout, design and materials. A variety of facing materials are used across the properties which include timber framing, render, hanging tiles and brickwork. 8. The character of this part of the CA and its significance stems from, amongst other aspects, the variation of building styles and forms of the individual houses which 1 Council Ref: 22/01138/FULL6 2 Council Ref: 22/01138/RECON Appeal Decision 6010085 3 are set within generously sized, verdant plots which create a pleasant spacious character. With its hanging tile front elevation, and visually interesting front gable incorporating bay windows, the appeal site could positively contribute to the character of the CA. However, its current flat roof side elevation is a prominent and uncharacteristic addition which, as constructed, negatively contributes to the character or appearance of the CA. 9. As the proposal is in a conservation area, I have paid special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character, appearance and significance of that area, as set out in section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act). 10. The proposal would not result in a significant alteration to the roof form of the side extension when compared with that approved under the most recent planning permission. However, the eaves would be raised to align with those of the main dwelling. This minor amendment would not introduce appreciable additional bulk or massing to the side extension. Furthermore, the alignment of the eaves would assist the extension in integrating with the host dwelling’s roof form. 11. The proposal would retain the host dwelling’s mansard roof form and clay roof tiles which is one of its more notable features. The variety in the design of dwellings is a key contributor to the character of the CA. The dwellings within this part of the CA exhibit significant variation in the design of their roof forms. As a result, the side extension’s eaves height would not appear as an unusual feature within the street scene. 12. Therefore, I find that the proposal would not cause harm to the character or appearance of the CA, nor any harm to its overall heritage significance. I find no conflict with Policies 6, 37 and 41 of the Bromley Local Plan (2019), Policies D3 and HC1 of the London Plan (2021), the SPG and Bromley Council’s Urban Design Supplementary Planning Document insofar as they require residential extensions to be of a scale and form that respects the host dwelling, and require that proposals preserve and enhance the character and appearance of conservation areas. Conditions 13. In allowing this appeal, a new planning permission is granted. The Planning Practice Guidance advises that such decisions should restate the conditions imposed on earlier permissions that continue to have effect. As the works have commenced on site, I have not imposed a time limit condition. 14. The PPG outlines circumstances where planning conditions should not be used. It states that conditions requiring a development to be carried out in its entirety will fail the test of necessity by requiring more than is needed to deal with the problem they are designed to solve. For this reason, I have not imposed a condition which requires the development to be completed within six months. 15. The approved plans condition is imposed to define the permission, however I have amended it to reflect the approved plans. A condition relating to the proposed facing materials is necesarry in the interests of character and appearance. I have imposed the previous condition relating to obscure glazed windows in the interests of the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. However, I have amended the wording to reflect the proposal’s amended design. Appeal Decision 6010085 4 Conclusion 16. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed and the planning permission varied as set out in the formal decision. B Pattison INSPECTOR