Single-storey rear extension

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: 15th September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6012060 108 Ridgeway Drive, Bromley BR1 5DD • 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 Magnus Norense against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Bromley. • The application Ref is 26/00620/HPA. • The development proposed is Single-storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for single-storey rear extension at 108 Ridgeway Drive, Bromley BR1 5DD in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref: 26/00620/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: EE01; EFP01; PE01; PFP01; proposed block plan and site location plan. 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. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of occupiers of 106 Ridgeway Drive (No 106), with particular reference to outlook and light. Reasons 4. The appeal site is a two storey end of terrace house. It is located within a short terrace which is set away from the public highway at an elevated level above the road. As a result of the sloping ground on this side of the street the gardens of properties within the terrace slope downwards towards the rear elevations of the houses. 5. At present, the appeal property’s rear elevation is in line with the rear elevation of the adjoining property, No 106. The shared boundary between the properties is marked by a wood panel fence, which is approximately 2 metres in height. In its Appeal Decision 6012060 2 rear elevation at ground floor level, No 106 has a pair of glazed doors, which are positioned close to the shared boundary with the appeal site. It appears that these serve a habitable room. A further window is positioned at the opposite end of the elevation, away from the appeal site. 6. The single storey extension would be located adjacent to the boundary with No 106. It would extend 4 metres in depth and feature a flat roof design, which would help to minimise its overall height. In addition, the submitted drawings indicate that, due to the site's sloping topography, the ground floor level would be excavated into the ground, creating a ‘sunken’ floor level. As a result, the flat roof would project only a limited distance above the existing shared boundary fence. Consequently, only a modest section of the extension’s side wall and roof would be visible from the rear ground floor windows of No 106. In this context, the extension would not appear unduly imposing, nor would it create an oppressive sense of enclosure for the occupiers of that neighbouring property. 7. Given the extension's limited height and flat roof form, only a modest section of the side wall would be visible from No 106. This arrangement would not result in unacceptable overshadowing of the nearest ground floor windows in the rear elevation or the rear garden. 8. I conclude that the development would not cause significant harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 106. Consequently, the proposal would comply with Policy 37 of the Bromley Local Plan (2019) and Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021), insofar as they require that proposals respect the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring buildings. Conditions 9. I have had regard to the planning conditions that have been suggested. I have considered them against the tests in the Framework and the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). I have made such amendments as necessary to comply with those documents and for clarity and consistency. 10. In addition to the standard time limit, I have imposed an approved plans condition in the interests of certainty. Conclusion 11. For the above reasons, and having had regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the proposed development would accord with the development plan and the Framework. The appeal is therefore allowed. B Pattison INSPECTOR