Demolition of garage and rear conservatory. Relocation of side door entrance to front elevation, canopy and raised steps. Two storey side extension. Part one/two storey rear extension and elevational alterations. Roof alterations to include loft conversion with front and rear rooflights

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 September 2026 by S Poole BA(Hons) DipArch MPhil MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 22 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6013075 66 Kechill Gardens, Hayes, Bromley BR2 7NG • 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 Meliz Yesilada against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Bromley. • The application Ref is 26/01042/HPA. • The development proposed is demolition of garage and rear conservatory. Relocation of side door entrance to front elevation, canopy and raised steps. Two storey side extension. Part one/two storey rear extension and elevational alterations. Roof alterations to include loft conversion with front and rear rooflights. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was revised on 17 August 2026. Those parts of the Framework most relevant to this appeal have not been amended. As a result, I have not sought submissions on the revised Framework, and I am satisfied that no party’s interests have been prejudiced by taking this approach. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host building and the street scene. Reasons 4. The appeal property forms one half of a pair of symmetrically arranged inter-war 2- storey semi-detached houses that was built in the inter-war years. The pair has a highly distinctive “chalet-style” roof form, and the front elevation features symmetrically arranged, double-storey bay windows and characterful diamond- shaped windows. The main entrances are set within the side elevation. The symmetrical arrangement of the pair has been slightly compromised by the addition of a large dormer within the side roof slope of No.64. 5. The appeal property forms part of a group of semi-detached houses of similar original design, a number of which have been extended and altered in the past. This has somewhat denuded the character and appearance of the street scene. The pair of houses to the side of the appeal property form part of the group and No. Appeal Decision 6013075 2 68 largely mirrors the appearance of the appeal property, although it includes a dormer in the side roof slope. Other houses in the street are semi-detached and of a similar age but less characterful design. Many have been extended. 6. The appeal proposal would include single and double-storey extensions to the rear and side and the replacement of the cat-slide side roof slope with a hipped roof. This significant re-modelling would be tantamount to the formation of a totally new house, with the only remnants of the existing exterior being the double-storey bay windows at the front. 7. Due to its bulk, massing and height the proposal would severely disrupt the symmetrical arrangement that the appeal property currently shares with its attached and un-attached neighbours. This would severely denude the characterful appearance of the semi-detached chalet-style houses in this part of Kechill Road. As such the proposal would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the host building and the street scene. 8. For these reasons, the proposal fails to accord with Policies 6 and 37 of the Bromley Local Plan (2019) and Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) which, amongst other matters, expect a high standard of design that positively contributes to the existing street scene. 9. The appellant has referred to the many examples of side additions in the area. These are noted but none are directly comparable to the proposal before me and, in any case, each planning application and appeal must be considered on its individual merits. Conclusion 10. For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should fail. S Poole INSPECTOR