Skip to main content
Official casework recordAllowedCurrent release

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 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

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.

  1. 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

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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