Appeal 3298689
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
a replacement front garden boundary wall.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a replacement front garden boundary wall at [site address] , in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/21/05213/FULL6, dated 29 October 2021, and the plans submitted with it.
Section 03
Procedural Matters
The description of development on the application form is “Replacement front garden boundary wall. Retrospective”. As the term retrospective does not relate to an act of development, I have omitted this from the description.
The front garden boundary wall has been completed in accordance with the submitted drawings.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 05
Reasons
The site is located in the [site address] Area of Special Residential Character (ASRC), which is described in the London Borough of Bromley Local Plan (January 2019) (the Local Plan), as having an open, suburban and semi-rural feel, predicated by low boundaries and visible front gardens.
[address] is a predominantly residential street comprising traditional houses set back from the highway. The houses in this area are typically a mixture of brick and white painted render, beneath a red clay tile roof. Front boundary treatments consist of low level walls and planting. The boundary walls vary significantly in terms of materials and include stone, artificial stone, brick and render. Directly opposite the appeal site there is a church yard, with a low brick boundary wall, which steps up in line with the topography of the street.
The appeal property is white rendered with some brick detailing. It is evident from the information before me that its front garden was previously enclosed by a low stone wall with higher level planting behind it.
The replacement boundary wall is finished in white painted render, which is commonly used in this area and matches the dwelling. Although slightly higher than the previous wall, it’s low height, which steps up in line with the ground level, retains the open feel and visibility of the front garden, in keeping with the ASRC.
The development reflects the character and appearance of the area and therefore accords with Policies 37 and 44 of the Local Plan, which seek amongst other things to ensure that development is of a high standard that respects, enhances and strengthens the special and distinctive qualities of the ASRC.
I have not been provided with a copy of the Article 4 Direction for the [site address] ASRC. However, such directions are not development plan policies against which development should be assessed. They are a method of removing permitted development rights, in order to manage development in a positive way.
Section 06
Conditions
As the development has already been completed and is in accordance with the submitted drawings, no conditions are necessary.
Section 07
Conclusion
For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.
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
- 23 December 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 1 November 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3298689
- Application reference
- DC/21/05213/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
- Allowed
- Decision category
- Allowed
- Received date
- 11 May 2022
- Valid date
- 11 May 2022
- Start date
- 17 June 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 21 February 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 23 December 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
- 25780
- 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