Appeal 3271064
Public case and site metadata stored from the official casework database, including fields that were empty in the source release.
A clearer next step
See how Inspectors approached issues like yours
Bring your planning decision into a private workspace. We separate the disputed points, then match them with source-located Inspector reasoning from similar appeals.
- See which issues the decision appears to turn on
- Compare the facts and open the full appeal records
One private comparison
How the refusal review worksOne-off service · No subscription
Similar appeals are evidence to inspect, not a prediction of your outcome.
Official decision document
The decision, section by section
5 sections
Read the development description and the Inspector’s text from the official decision PDF in source order. Source headings are retained where available. Personal and contact details are removed by an automated privacy filter; this is source material, not Rules for You analysis.
Section 01
Development description
a rear single storey orangery.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a rear single storey orangery at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 20/03224/FUL, dated 9 December 2020, subject to the following conditions:
The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plan Ref. 19QUEENSPLAN688.
The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those of the existing dwelling.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal relates to a large detached dwelling. It sits within a suburban road which is home to dwellings of a variety of sizes and designs; many of which have been extended and altered extensively.
The appeal dwelling has recently been the subject of a two storey extension across the full width of its rear elevation. The proposal seeks to add an orangery across about two thirds of the extended rear elevation, which would www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate project a further 3 metres. According to the Council’s calculations, this would see the cumulative depth of the rear extensions project some 9 metres from the original rear elevation.
From what I can deduce, the original dwelling was reasonably large, sitting within a deep plot. The existing two storey addition projects beyond the main rear elevations of the detached dwellings located either side. However, the proposed orangery would not project significantly beyond the single storey rear section of the nearest neighbouring dwelling, No. [address]. Against this context, I am satisfied that the proposed orangery would not appear overly large or out of context, even when considered cumulatively alongside the two storey addition.
In this particular situation, I conclude that the proposed orangery would not harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling or that of the surrounding area. In such terms, there is no conflict with the overall aims of policy CS01 of the adopted [name], policies H9 and ENV39 of the adopted Bexley Council Unitary Development Plan or the Council’s Design and Development Control Guidelines Note 2 (Extensions to Houses) which collectively promote high quality design that reflects and, where possible, enhances, its context and does not amount to over-development.
Section 05
Conditions
In addition to the standard conditions which limit the lifespan of the planning permission and direct that the development takes place in accordance with the approved plans, the Council has suggested a condition to ensure the external finishing materials of the extension match those of the host dwelling. I agree that such a condition is necessary to ensure a visually acceptable development. In allowing the appeal, I shall impose these conditions.
Planning inspector and document dates
The official casework attribution is grouped under a one-way keyed hash and shown only by its local identifier. Decision-letter dates and page references are extracted by fixed first-page rules and checked against that authoritative record.
Appeal Decision
- Extracted inspector · page 1
- Inspector attribution ID 831No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 27 September 2021Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 15 July 2021 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3271064
- Application reference
- 20/03224/FUL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- London Borough of Bexley
- Planning authority code
- E09000004
Casework details
The casework, procedure, development and linking details supplied by the official record.
- Casework type
- Householder (HAS)
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development type
- Householder developments
- Appeal type reason
- 1. Refused planning permission
- Appeal reason
- Refusal
- Type detail
- Planning Appeals - Full
- Jurisdiction
- Transferred
- Link status
- Not Linked
Site and development
Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.
- Site area
- Not recorded
- Floor space
- Not recorded
- Number of residences
- 0
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- No
- Affects setting of a listed building
- No
- Historic building grant made
- No
- Relates to a conservation area
- No
- Flooding is an issue
- No
- Site within an AONB
- No
- Site within an SSSI
- No
Decision and dates
The published outcome and every imported case date.
- Official decision
- Allowed
- Decision category
- Allowed
- Received date
- 15 March 2021
- Valid date
- 15 March 2021
- Start date
- 13 May 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 4 February 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 27 September 2021
Case administration
Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.
- Redetermined
- No
- Bespoke
- No
- Date recovered
- Not recorded
- Date not recovered or derecovered
- Not recorded
- Call-in date
- Not recorded
- Costs applied for
- No
- Enforcement grounds count
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds
- Not recorded
Source and catalogue history
When this record appeared in the rolling official release and when the catalogue stored it.
- Source
- Planning Inspectorate casework database
- Source data system
- Horizon
- Dataset status
- Current release
- Catalogue record ID
- 3780
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:25
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21