Single storey side/ rear extension to existing bungalow

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 5 August 2026 by Lynne Evans BA MA MRTPI MRICS an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 12 August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6011580 70 Northlands Avenue, Orpington BR6 9LZ • 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 Mr Sathwan against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Bromley. • The application Ref is 26/00948/HPA. • The development proposed is single storey side/ rear extension to existing bungalow. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and on the street scene. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a semi-detached bungalow of modest scale, on the south- west side of Northlands Avenue with a side return to North Drive. It is situated within a predominantly residential area with the properties to the south along Northlands Avenue being primarily semi-detached bungalows, most with a single projecting bay to the front and further north beyond the junction with North Drive, two storey, semi-detached properties. The appeal property has been previously extended to the side and features two projecting bays under a hipped roof. As a corner plot, it benefits from a larger garden than many of the surrounding dwellings. 4. The proposal seeks to build a single storey side and rear extension, under an extended hipped roof. The design would add a further projecting bay to the front of the same scale and design as the existing two projecting bays. 5. The property has previously been extended with a side addition and second forward projecting bay, and there are a small number of examples where a similar form of extension has been undertaken, particularly on corner plots. However, the addition of a further extension to the side and to the rear including the addition of a third projecting bay would materially change the scale and proportions of the dwelling. Its extended width would appear overly wide in proportion to the overall scale and proportions of the existing dwelling. The addition of a third projecting bay would exacerbate the additional bulk and massing to the property which would be disproportionate to the scale and massing of the existing dwelling. Appeal Decision 6011580 2 6. Although the appeal property is not symmetrical with its adjoining neighbour and No 72 also has a dormer addition, the proposed extension would further detract from the pair of properties, because of the scale and proportions of the additional width and massing. The overly extended form of the dwelling would also appear unacceptably prominent and visually intrusive in the street scene. 7. I therefore conclude that the proposed development would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and the street scene. This would conflict with Policy D3 of the London Plan, Policies 6 and 37 of the London Borough of Bromley Local Plan (2019) and the Council’s Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2023), as well as the National Planning Policy Framework, and in particular Section 12, all of which amongst other matters, seek a high quality of design which respects the local context. 8. My attention has been drawn to other side extensions in the local area, which I saw on my site visit. Each proposal must be considered on its individual merits and that has been the basis of my assessment. Furthermore, none of the extensions to which my attention has been drawn compare with the proposal before me and they do not therefore persuade me to a different view. Other Considerations 9. A number of comments from local residents have raised concerns that if approved and built out the extended property might be subdivided to create more than one property. However, I am required to consider the proposal before me which is a householder proposal for an extension to an existing residential property. 10. The Appellant has referred to permitted development alternative options, but there are no details before me and I am required to determine the appeal on the basis of the proposal before me. Conclusions 11. For the reasons set out above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. L J Evans INSPECTOR