Appeal 3290976
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
7 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
two storey side extension and demolition of existing rear conservatory.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a two storey side extension and demolition of existing rear conservatory at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 21/04758/FULL6, dated 27 September 2021, subject to the following
Section 03
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 following approved plans: PB-21/46RING/01; PB-21/46RING/02; PB-21/46RING/03; PB-21/46RING/04 and PB-21/46RING/10.
The external finishes of the development hereby permitted shall match in material, colour, style, bonding and texture those of the existing building.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the existing building and the surrounding area.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal building occupies a prominent corner plot in a residential area where two storey dwellings predominate as a mix between semi-detached and terraced examples. There is a suburban feel to the area where building address their street frontage, following the curvature of the road. [name] note the minimum gap standards advanced by Policy 8 of the Bromley Local Plan 2019 (BLP), local plots are mixed and irregular in shape which creates gaps between buildings of varying degrees.
Whilst the gap between the extended dwelling and No. [address] would fall below the required standard, being approximately 0.75m at its closest, this would be set within a noticeably varied context. Specifically, and in the case of corner plots like the appeal site, they tend to be more spacious due to their irregular shaped. In addition, there are other instances in the surrounding area where adjoining properties are closer following two-storey extensions.
No. 101’s extension is set back from the main façade appearing subservient to the host property, unlike the appeal proposal. Conversely however, No. [address] and No [address] are similar properties to the appeal building which both have two-storey side extensions that sit flush with the host property, in complimentary scale, design and material thereto.
The location of the appeal building allows unrestricted views of it from various directions. However, the positioning itself does not make the proposal unacceptable and it would not be unacceptably prominent because of its respectful scale, form and materials. The street scene would be altered. The resulting juxtaposition of the extended dwelling would have a sufficient gap, resembling the other more tightly arranged parts of the surrounding area and would thus not appear cramped. As such, any minor infringements in respect to the resulting gap at the rear would not weigh heavily against approval of the scheme, in terms of unacceptably lowering established spatial standards of the surrounding area.
The proposal would not therefore harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area. As such, it would accord with principles of Policies 6, 8 and 37 of the BLP 2019 which amongst others, requires all new development to achieve high quality design respecting the host dwelling and being compatible with development in the surrounding area.
Section 06
Conditions
I have imposed conditions requiring commencement of development within three years and development in accordance with the approved plans for certainty. I have also attached a condition requiring the use of matching materials in the interests of a good quality appearance to the development.
Section 07
Conclusion
The proposed developments would meet the requirements of the development plan, the appeal should therefore succeed.
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 2962No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 13 July 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 7 June 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3290976
- Application reference
- 21/04758/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
- 49 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
- 18 January 2022
- Valid date
- 18 January 2022
- Start date
- 29 March 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 30 November 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 13 July 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
- Not recorded
- 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
- 17712
- 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