Kings Hall Road – Domestic Extension

(Image Credit Nick Guttridge©)

IPS was instructed to assist Daykin Marshall Studio in the preparation of an Appeal against the refusal of planning permission for a domestic extension within Bromley Borough Council, Beckenham, London.

The appeal site consisted of a three-storey semi-detached property set within an elongated and extensive rear garden typical of many semi-detached properties developed in this area around the late 19th Century.

To the rear of the property was a principal and secondary single storey extension with a lean-to roof which appeared to have been built, as with almost all other similar rear extensions, at the time that the original dwelling was constructed.

The appeal site was a north facing rear garden, backing onto a public park, which formed part of a Conservation Area. There was no material intervisibility between the property and the Park due to the size and maturity of the trees on the northern boundary of the site and thus the site was not considered to be within the setting of the Conservation Area.

The proposal consisted of the removal of the existing lean-to extension and the construction of a contemporary single extension to provide a kitchen / family room. The project architects design by Daykin Marshal Studio had provided thorough consideration of potential impacts arising from the proposal. This included a sun study and a detailed consideration of the position of the east facing windows. The resulting design was of a high quality and architectural standard, which fully considered the setting and context of the proposals, and impact on neighbouring dwellings.

The planning application submitted to Bromley Borough Council was ‘called-in’ to be considered by the Planning Committee. The proposal was considered by the ‘Plans Sub-Committee No.2’ and subsequently refused in September 2016. The refusal notice provided one reason for refusal:

“1. The proposed extension, by reason of its depth, height and bulk, would result in an overly dominant and overbearing addition to the host dwelling, which would fail to respect the existing scale and form of the host dwelling and surrounding development and would be harmful to the character of the area in general, thereby contrary to Policies H8 and BE1 of the UDP.”

IPS considered this position to be unreasonable and submitted an Appeal to the Planning Inspectorate against this decision.

The submitted Appeal Statement, prepared by IPS argued that the proposed single storey domestic extension to the rear of the property would not give rise to harm to either the architectural quality of the host dwelling or the surrounding adjacent development. The scale and extent of the extension is marginally larger than would have been otherwise regarded as permitted development and therefore the decision to refuse permission is disproportionate and has exaggerated the potential impact.

The appeal statement also considered that the proposal was only marginally larger than that which would be acceptable under Schedule 2, Part 1 Class A (A.1 (g) (i)) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015. This was reinforced within the submission of two additional drawings that demonstrated the extent of development that would be acceptable without permission.

The height of the proposal was almost entirely within permitted development rights as was the chimney. Only a very small area of the edge of the flat roof was outside of the stipulated perimeters.


The proposal extended 7m beyond the original dwelling. The permitted development rights allowed 6m.

The Appeal Inspector agreed with IPS, concluding:

‘Although the proposed rear extension would be larger than rear projections on neighbouring properties, I consider that due to the subservient design and siting adjacent to the bulk of the adjacent block of flats, it would respect the existing scale and form of the host dwelling and surrounding development. Set against the bulk of the adjacent apartment block, I do not consider that it would be harmful to the character or appearance of the rear garden environment.’

The Inspector allowed the appeal against the refusal of the application in February 2017. IPS is pleased to report that the proposal has now been constructed and we are delighted with results which reinforce the quality of the proposed design responding to the character of the locality and adjacent dwellings.