Appeal 3308420
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
5 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 hip-to-gable roof extension with front and rear dormer, Juliet balcony and new windows to side and rear.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
[name]
I have used the description of the proposed development as set out by the Council as this more accurately reflects the proposal.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal relates to this modest semi-detached bungalow which is located within this residential area. The locality is dominated by semi-detached bungalows although there are a few examples of 2 storey houses.
[address] rises steeply from [address] and contains 7 bungalows set around the head of the cul-de-sac. Originally, these and the other bungalows in the area had hipped roofs. Nos 2 and [address] have had a hip-to-gable extension with rear dormers and Nos 4 and 6 have front dormer windows but have retained part of the original hipped roof. I saw no other examples of front dormer windows in the locality.
Policy 6 of the Council’s Local Plan 2019 (LP) states that dormer windows should be of a size and design appropriate to the roofscape and sited away from prominent roof pitches, unless dormers are a feature of the area. Whilst there are 2 dormer windows within the front roof slopes of properties within [address], very nearby, these are isolated examples and there are no others within the area that have been drawn to my attention. In this context, I consider that they are not a feature of the area; rather, they appear as anomalies within an area that otherwise does not contain front dormers. In addition, the Council points out that these front dormers are of some age, dating from the 1970s and possibly undertaken as permitted development at that time and under a different regime of permitted development and within a different Policy context. Therefore, I do not regard the existing front dormers as a precedent within the area that should be followed.
The proposed dormer would be on the most prominent roof-slope of this property. It would be readily visible within the street-scene of [address]. Furthermore, the proposed width of the dormer would be greater than those at Nos 4 and 6 and the overall impact of the proposal would be greater due to the hip-to-gable extension. Therefore, I consider that the proposal would appear unduly dominant and would have a considerably negative effect on the character and appearance of the street-scene here. As a result, the proposal would be contrary to Policies 6 and 37 of the LP. I have taken account of the appellant’s stated family needs for additional accommodation. These are matters which would be of a personal and individual family benefit but would not outweigh the longer lasting and public impact of the proposal, in my judgement. As a consequence, the appeal is 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 188No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 15 May 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 11 April 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3308420
- Application reference
- DC/22/00693/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
- Not recorded
- 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
- 6 October 2022
- Valid date
- 6 October 2022
- Start date
- 14 March 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 22 September 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 15 May 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
- 32601
- 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