Appeal 3311821
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
8 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 single storey rear extension and addition of hipped roof over existing extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey rear extension and addition of hipped roof over existing extension at [site address] , Bexley [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application 22/02318/FUL, dated 12 September 2022, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:
The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.
The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.
Section 03
Preliminary Matters
As the description of development varies between documents submitted for the purpose of this appeal, I have used the one from the Council’s decision notice as this most accurately and concisely describes the proposal.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the local area.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal dwelling is a detached bungalow with a hipped roof. It has a good sized front garden given over mainly to hard paving for parking, with a planting bed to the front half of the garden. To the rear is a garden that is also of a good size and is mainly laid to lawn. The appeal dwelling has been the subject of existing single storey extensions to the rear, including a conservatory that also attaches to an outbuilding.
The appeal dwelling is located on a street made up of a mix of similarly sized detached bungalows and two storey semi-detached houses. To one side of the appeal property is a semi-detached two storey house, and to the other a private road to a flatted development, which is located to the rear of the appeal dwelling and two storey dwellings on the other side of the access road.
The proposal would extend the existing hipped roof form of the appeal dwelling over an already existing single storey flat roofed rear extension. It would also replace an existing rear conservatory extension, and an attached outbuilding, with a new single storey flat roofed extension with roof lantern. This proposed extension would be the full width of the appeal dwelling and would extend rearwards to the extent of the existing attached outbuilding.
The extension of the hipped roof rearward over an existing extension and the proposed full width extension would regularise the rear appearance of the appeal dwelling that is currently defined by the disparate designs of the existing extensions and attached outbuildings. This would be particularly apparent when viewed from the private access road and neighbouring rear gardens.
Although the proposal would result in a larger dwelling than existing, the architecturally sympathetic extension of the existing roof and rationalised appearance of the rear extensions would result in these additions appearing as a subordinate to the existing dwelling. The resulting extended appeal dwelling would be proportionate to the size of its plot and would reflect the scale and design of other properties in the area. As such, the proposal would accord with the Council’s design guidance for extensions set out in Design and Development Control Guidelines 2, as appended to The Bexley Unitary Development Plan (2004).
For these reasons the proposal would not appear as cramped on its site and would not result in any significant harm to the character and appearance of the local area.
Section 06
Other Matters
Concerns have been raised by an interested party with regard to the location of the proposed extension with reference to the party wall act. However, this constitutes a property and not a planning matter and not, therefore, one that I can give any significant weight to in my considerations.
Section 07
Conditions
As well as requiring compliance with approved plans and the standard condition relating to the timing of implementation, to ensure design quality I have applied a condition requiring materials to be used for the proposal to match those of the existing building.
Section 08
Conclusion
The appeal is 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 209No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 17 February 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 26 January 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3311821
- Application reference
- 22/02318/FUL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- London Borough of Bexley
- Planning authority code
- E09000004
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
- 28 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
- 23 November 2022
- Valid date
- 23 November 2022
- Start date
- 22 December 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 9 November 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 17 February 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
- 28449
- 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