Appeal 3272361
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
for a loft conversion including rear dormer and part hip- to-gable extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the appeal proposal upon the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site is situated within a residential area predominately comprising two storey semi-detached houses wherein the principle of development is deemed acceptable. Many dwellings in the locality have been altered and extended over time in a number of ways.
No14, like some other houses within the road has a cat-slide roof to the flank elevation of the original main range, and a two storey side extension behind this which projects to the rear. The proposed side extension would build over the majority of the main roof, dramatically affecting its character, and in combination with the existing extensions and rear dormer would give it a jumbled appearance comprising of a multitude of built elements.
Notwithstanding the marginal step-down from the main ridge of no14, the scheme would also unbalance the pair of semi-detached dwellings of which it forms part, in an area where such additions are not common place, particularly to a house of this specific design. I note the other examples cited by the appellant, and whilst it is not for me to comment on the appropriateness of these or otherwise, each case must be assessed on its own merits.
[name] consider that by reason of its size and bulk, the proposed side extension would result in an unsympathetic and incongruous addition to the appeal dwelling and would be harmful to the character and appearance of the street scene. This harm is not outweighed by the benefits of creating additional living accommodation with the form of development largely following its function.
I find the scheme is in conflict with Policies 6 and 37 of the London Borough of Bromley Local Plan (2019) which together require the design and layout of proposals for the alteration or enlargement of residential properties to, amongst other things, be of a scale and form that would respect or complement those of the host dwelling and be compatible with development in the surrounding area whilst being imaginative and attractive to look at.
The scheme also conflicts with the National Planning Policy Framework’s need to achieve well-designed places, ensuring that developments are visually attractive as a result of good architecture and are sympathetic to local character.
Section 05
Conclusion
Having regard to the above and all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal be 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 297No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 27 August 2021Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 20 July 2021 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3272361
- Application reference
- DC/20/04109/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
- Not recorded
- 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
- 1 April 2021
- Valid date
- 1 April 2021
- Start date
- 26 May 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 3 February 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 27 August 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
- 2437
- 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