# 72-74 High Street, Beckenham (upward roof extension to flats)

- **Decision:** dismissed, 28 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: L Francis
- **Authority:** Bromley (London)
- **Appeal reference:** 6013151
- **Application reference:** 26/01563/FPA
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Single-storey upward extension to enlarge two existing second-floor flats above a restaurant in Beckenham Town Centre Conservation Area
- **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** HE6(4)
- **Development plan policies:** London Plan 2021 D3, HC1, Bromley Local Plan 2019 Policies 6, 37, 41
- **Main issues:** conservation area
- **Tags:** tier-2, upward-extension, conservation-area, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-harm-ungraded, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, private-benefit-not-public, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework

## Summary
A roof extension to enlarge two flats above a Beckenham High Street restaurant would obscure the rear roof slope, visible from Church Avenue, and erode the conservation area's traditional roofscape. The benefits went only to the two flats' occupiers. Dismissed.

## Issues and findings
- **Harm.** "an overly dominant and bulky addition to the rear of the buildings which would obscure the original roof form" (DL ¶8).
- **HE5 / HE6(4).** "Under the terms of Framework Policy HE5, I consider there would be harm to the significance of the CA through the scale and bulk of the roof extension" (DL ¶9). No degree is given, and HE6(1) and HE6(3) weight are not stated.
- **Public benefits.** "they would be confined to the occupiers of the flats and in my view would be very limited as a public benefit" (DL ¶10).

## Planning balance
HE6(4) and a plan-led conclusion: "The harm I have identified to the CA would outweigh the benefits" (DL ¶17). No S4 step.

## What made the difference
Public visibility of the rear roof through a gap in the street, unlike the Council's comparator approvals.

## Transferable points
- Enlarging existing flats is a private benefit of very limited public weight (DL ¶10).

## Policy findings
- **HE6(4): fail.** bulky rear roof addition erodes the traditional roofscape; harm under HE5 not graded; public benefits confined to occupiers of two flats, very limited (DL 8-10)
- **L2: benefit (limited weight).** mapped - improved accommodation and efficient use of land, limited weight given scale (DL 17)

## Key facts
- Rear elevation visible from Church Avenue through a gap in the streetscape (DL 7)
- Other upward extensions in the CA distinguished on visibility (DL 12-14)
- Parties given the opportunity to comment on the 17 Aug 2026 Framework (DL 2)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6013151
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/9df3ddaa-98e5-44b1-bef1-58c3b0f62b67

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6013151.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.