Appeal 3293650
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
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
two storey side and rear extension, exterior and internal alterations.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Preliminary Matters
At the time of my site visit, building works had commenced on an alternative development. This has had no bearing on my decision, and I have determined this appeal based upon the plans submitted.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the appearance of the host dwelling and the street scene.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal property is a two-storey detached house, which previously had a single storey flat roof garage to the side. Its wide frontage and wide windows, give the building a strong horizontal emphasis. It is set within a spacious plot of land, and due to its position, on the bend of a residential estate road, and its minimal landscaping, its front and side elevations are visually prominent in the street scene.
Surrounding properties comprise a mixture of detached houses and bungalows of similar age, materials and detailing, with many having been altered and extended to the front, side and rear. Soft landscaping, open frontages and generous spaces between dwellings, particularly above ground floor level, give the area a very pleasant, open and spacious feel.
The proposed development, particularly due to the proportions of the two front gables and the number, size and type of front windows, would not reflect the distinctive characteristics of the existing dwelling or those immediately surrounding it. Moreover, the width of the two-storey side extension would detract from the space between buildings and would appear incongruous in comparison to adjacent properties.
[name] have had regard to other similarly large extensions that have been approved and built in the area, these are either in less visually prominent locations, such as in the corner of a cul-de-sac, or are of a design that more closely reflects the style, appearance and fenestration of other dwellings and original features in the area.
I therefore conclude that the proposal would harmfully detract from the appearance of the host dwelling and the street scene, contrary to Policies 6, 8 and 37 of the London Borough of Bromley Local Plan (January 2019), which seek to ensure, amongst other things, that extensions are designed to a high standard that complements the scale and proportions of adjacent buildings and that respects the space between buildings where it contributes to the character of the area. As Policy D3 of The London Plan (March 2021) relates to optimising site capacity, I do not consider it to be relevant to this householder proposal.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the reasons given above I conclude that the proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole and there are no considerations to indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. The appeal is therefore 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 164No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 3 January 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 16 November 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3293650
- Application reference
- DC/21/04616/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
- 282 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
- 23 February 2022
- Valid date
- 23 February 2022
- Start date
- 20 April 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 10 December 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 3 January 2023
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
- 25916
- 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