Appeal 3330995
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
No verified development description has been extracted from an official decision PDF yet.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and the surrounding area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site relates to a semi-detached, two-storey house on [address] with off-street parking to the front. The streetscene to this side of the road is domestic in nature with the rear elevations of commercial buildings that front [address] opposite.
It would be evident from [address] that the ridge height of the two-storey side element would match that of the existing property. Being flush with the highest point of the dwelling, the addition would lack subservience in this regard. The scheme would be set back from the front elevation of the host property, however this would be minimal and appears as a token gesture; the extension would therefore be neither fully integrated nor clearly subordinate. Overall, the imposing appearance of the extension would be in contrast to the existing residence, and compete with its scale. It would represent a bulky addition to the detriment of the character of the building.
I appreciate that alterations to semi-detached properties will inevitably result in an imbalance to an original pair, and with this in mind the principle of extending the property is likely to be acceptable. I note that the proposals would retain a gap of 1 metre to the side boundary, and to my mind the width of the extension would be acceptable and in proportion to the existing house. However, the specific development before me would result in a discordant scheme for the reasons above. _________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________
I am aware that the development would not have an adverse impact upon the amenities of the occupiers of either of the neighbouring dwellings in terms of privacy, light and overbearing impact, and that the extension would enhance the quality of internal accommodation. However, these matters would nto outweigh the harm I have identified previously.
I also recognise the presence of other extensions in the vicinity, and observed the relevant properties highlighted in the grounds of appeal at my visit. Nevertheless, additions to other houses would be neutral considerations in any balance against planning harm, and I am mindful that each case must be assessed on its own merits.
I consider that the development would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and the surrounding area. It would be contrary to Policies 6 and 37 of the Bromley Local Plan 2019, which seek to secure new development of acceptable scale and appearance.
Section 05
Conclusion
Having regard to the above and all other matters advanced, 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 212No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 9 January 2024Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 13 December 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3330995
- Application reference
- 23/02752/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
- 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
- 9 October 2023
- Valid date
- 9 October 2023
- Start date
- 15 November 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 19 September 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 9 January 2024
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
- 44531
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:27
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21