Appeal 3271487
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
4 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
roof alterations with rear dormer and 2 front rooflights.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal relates to this detached 2 storey house which is located within a residential area of similar houses. The houses appear to date from the inter-war period and it is notable that the vast majority have hipped roofs. Many of the houses have been extended and I saw all of those referred to by the appellant at my site visit, including those with side gabled roofs.
Notwithstanding the fact that many forms of extensions have been undertaken to the houses within this road, the great majority have retained hipped roofs at the sides. This helps to retain a degree of space between the properties, particularly at the upper level, even where adjacent houses have been extended. In addition, it is a consistent feature which unifies the appearance of the properties and is characteristic of the area. The appeal property currently contributes positively to this characteristic with its series of hipped roofs.
The proposal would include the formation of gables at both sides of the property, where hipped roofs currently exist. The property would retain some of the other existing hipped elements, including one to the left-hand side, to the rear of the proposal. When seen in combination with the unaltered existing parts of the roof, I consider that the proposed gables would clash visually and would appear at odds with the remainder of the roof. When seen in its wider context, the proposal would appear out of character with the great majority of houses which have various forms of hipped roofs.
In relation to those few properties which have some gabled elements, the Council has indicated that some have arisen from extensions undertaken as permitted development and so will not have been the result of planning permission issued by the Council. In relation to others, I have not been provided with any details of whether these have received permission from the Council. In any event, they form only a small number within the road and in my judgement run contrary to the prevailing character. Furthermore, they serve to demonstrate the disruptive effects of such extensions.
I have also taken account of the other forms of extensions within the area. Whilst there are many in number and form, I consider that none would justify allowing the proposed extension. Due to its design and appearance, the proposal would have a harmful effect on the area, contrary to Policies 6 and 37 of the Council’s Local Plan 2019. Taking account of all other matters, there is nothing of sufficient weight to outweigh that harm. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.
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 188No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 6 July 2021Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 21 June 2021 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3271487
- Application reference
- DC/20/05154/FULL6
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- London Borough of Bromley
- Planning authority code
- E09000006
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
- 32 m²
- Number of residences
- 0
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- No
- Affects setting of a listed building
- Not recorded
- Historic building grant made
- Not recorded
- Relates to a conservation area
- Not recorded
- Flooding is an issue
- Not recorded
- Site within an AONB
- Not recorded
- Site within an SSSI
- Not recorded
Decision and dates
The published outcome and every imported case date.
- Official decision
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 21 March 2021
- Valid date
- 21 March 2021
- Start date
- 12 May 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 3 March 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 6 July 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
- 297
- 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