Appeal 3315484
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
to raise the deck to meet the same level as the existing rear extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon the living conditions of the occupiers of 209 and 213 [name], with particular regard to privacy.
Section 04
Reasons
A decked area already exists to the rear of the property and gives stepped access to the garden, which is over a metre lower than the dwelling and is a common feature with dwellings along [name]. The current decking is accessed by steps immediately to the rear of the dwelling and the proposal seeks to raise the decking to be level with the dwelling.
A degree of overlooking already exists which allows for views of the neighbouring gardens at 209 and 213 [name], however the existing fencing and hedgerow on the common boundaries provides some screening.
The proposal would raise the height of the decking by over 0.5m and would allow unobstructed views of both gardens at No’s. 209 and 213. The depth of the decking is over 3m and whilst this depth would remain the same, the extra height would increase visibility of neighbouring gardens from a seated and standing position. The proposal would therefore cause additional overlooking and result in an unacceptable loss of privacy for neighbours.
The proposed glass balustrade, due to its low height and transparency, would not mitigate the overlooking or loss of privacy as views would still be possible over and through the balustrade.
The appellant has suggested that a condition could be imposed requiring privacy screens. I am told that these would comprise obscure glazing at 2m high, positioned along the sides of the deck and tapered towards the rear. These works would constitute a material change to the development proposed and they have not been the subject of public consultation. To avoid prejudicing interested parties, I have determined the appeal against the information submitted with the application.
I conclude that the proposal would have a materially harmful effect on the privacy of neighbouring occupiers at Nos. 209 and [address]. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy 37 of the London Borough of Bromley Local Plan (2019) which seeks to ensure that development respects the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring buildings.
Section 05
Other matters
I note that the proposal seeks to create an outdoor space which is level with the host accommodation and provide some enhancements for the occupiers of [site address] . However, these matters do not outweigh the harm caused to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the reasons set out above, having had regard to the development plan read as a whole, and all other material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be 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 4347No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 28 April 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 21 March 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3315484
- Application reference
- DC/22/03358/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
- Unknown
- 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
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 26 January 2023
- Valid date
- 26 January 2023
- Start date
- 24 February 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 7 November 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 28 April 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
- 31974
- 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