Skip to main content
Official casework recordAllowedCurrent release

Appeal 3282210

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 works

One-off service · No subscription

Similar appeals are evidence to inspect, not a prediction of your outcome.

Official decision document

The decision, section by section

6 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

the construction of a new detached double garage.

  1. Section 02

    Decision

    The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a new detached double garage at [site address] , [site address] , [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref.21/01624/FULL6, dated 29 March 2021, 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 strict accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan ref no. TQRQM2102013520525 dated 20 January 2021, G-001, G-002, G- 003 & G-004.

    The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the garage hereby permitted shall match those used in the main dwelling.

  2. Section 03

    Main Issue

    The main issue in the appeal is the effect of the proposed garage on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the streetscene.

  3. Section 04

    Reasons

    The appeal relates to a two storey detached dwelling and its curtilage, located on the south western side of [address]. [address] is an unmade road at this location. The area is residential. The main dwelling has been extended with a side extension at first floor level over the existing integrated garage and some of the elevations including the front-facing elevation have been rendered. The site adjoins Green Belt land to the west boundary to the rear of the site. A public footpath runs alongside the north west boundary of the site and behind the proposed garage.

    Planning permission is sought for a double detached garage located at the front of the property. The proposed garage doors would not face the road but would be perpendicular to the front façade of the main dwelling. The proposed garage would have a width of about 8m (its front) and it would have a staggered rear elevation with a depth of about 5m to the side facing the dwelling and about 6.[address] side. It would have a perimeter pitched roof with a height of about 3m and an eaves height of about 2.4m. It would stand back from the front boundary of the property by about 2.3m.

    Policies 6 and 37 of the Bromley Local Plan (January 2019) and the Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance seek to ensure that new development, including domestic garages are of a high quality design that respect the scale and form of the host dwelling and are compatible with surrounding development.

    The land slopes down from [address] to the dwelling. The front area has been landscaped with a curved vehicular access from the road passing in front of the dwelling, then providing access into the proposed garage. There is a curved retaining wall facilitating the change in level and a grassed area on top of the retaining wall in front of the house.

    The proposed garage would be set at a slightly lower level than street level, and owing to its partially pitched roof (which would not exceed about 3m in height from ground level with eaves at 2.4m) it would not appear unduly dominant from the street. Given that it would have similar external facing materials to the main dwelling my view is that it would harmonise with the main dwelling rather than appear incongruous or unduly bulky.

    Whilst there would be some modest overlap between the side elevation of the main dwelling and the garage, it would be possible to see most of the front elevation of the main dwelling when facing that elevation from the Avenue. Sufficient areas of greenery and openness would remain to the front area of the house to make it compatible and in harmony with the surrounding dwellings. The existing boundary treatment between the proposed garage and the public right of way would screen the majority of the rear of the garage and views from that path would not be materially altered.

    On my site visit I saw several dwellings along [address] with garages/outbuildings located in the front areas of their curtilages but not in the very immediate vicinity of no.96. However, for the reasons I have given, in this particular case, the proposed single storey garage would not harm the character or appearance of the host dwelling or the area.

    I conclude that the proposed garage would not harm the character or appearance of the host dwelling or the area. It would not conflict with policies 6 or 37 of the Bromley Local Plan (January 2019).

  4. Section 05

    Conditions

    I have considered the imposition of planning conditions in the light of advice in National Planning Practice Guidance. A condition which ties the built development to the approved plans is necessary for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of certainty. In order to protect the character and appearance of the host dwelling and its surroundings a condition requiring the proposal to match the existing materials of the dwelling is necessary.

    Given the information provided on the submitted plans, it is not necessary to attach a condition setting down garage dimensions, and parking arrangements do not need to be specifically subject to a condition given the hard landscaping that has occurred at the front of the site.

  5. Section 06

    Conclusion

    Having taken into account all representations made, for the reasons given above, I allow the appeal and grant planning permission subject to conditions. [name].C.

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 98No official casework-database value to compare
    Extracted decision date · page 1
    4 April 2022Matches the official casework database
    Extracted site visit dates
    18 February 2022 (page 1)

Reference and authority

Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.

Case reference
3282210
Application reference
21/01624/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
46 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
Allowed
Decision category
Allowed
Received date
3 September 2021
Valid date
3 September 2021
Start date
27 October 2021
Planning authority decision date
28 July 2021
Appeal decision date
4 April 2022

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
13437
First seen
20 August 2026 at 14:24
Last seen
20 August 2026 at 16:26
Removed from release
Not recorded
Record created
20 August 2026 at 14:24
Record updated
24 August 2026 at 16:21