Appeal 3331017
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
for a minor extension to existing loft dormer.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and the local area, having regard to the [site address] Area of Special Residential Character (ASRC).
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site relates to a two-storey, semi-detached house on [address]. The local neighbourhood is residential in nature and comprises detached and semi-detached properties of considerable variety in terms of their design and detailing. Many have been previously extended at roof level.
Within this multi-faceted environment, I consider that the addition to the existing roof element at the side and rear would not appear incongruous. The scheme is relatively minor in its scale and extent and would be set away from the eaves below to retain a sense of articulation. To my mind, it would visually connect with the overall appearance of the host dwelling, without dominating it, and respond to the original design characteristics.
An imbalance between the appeal dwelling and the adjoining semi is already present at roof level, and I am of the view that the development would not exacerbate this situation above and beyond that which currently exists.
Notwithstanding my reasoning on the side dormer, the proposals include two rooflights in the front elevation; from the plans these would appear to be excessively large. [name] appreciate that there are numerous other examples in the streetscene, these are more modest in size. Furthermore, one of the rooflights would be prominently and awkwardly located just above the eaves level of the extended side dormer, which would appear discordant in the context of the roofslope. _________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________
I appreciate that the scheme would provide for an improvement to the internal accommodation and that the materials proposed would match those of the existing property and neighbouring dwellings. However, these matters would not outweigh the harm I have identified above.
On this basis, although the extension to the dormer is acceptable, I am drawn to conclude that the proposed rooflights to the front elevation would result in harm to the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and the local area, having regard to the ASRC. This would be contrary to Policies 6, 37 and 44 of the LP, which seek to ensure proposals meet high standards of design and protect the character of neighbourhoods.
Section 05
Conclusion
In respect of the arguments above and all other matters put forward, 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
- 10 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
- 3331017
- Application reference
- DC/23/02318/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
- 10 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
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 10 October 2023
- Valid date
- 22 October 2023
- Start date
- 22 November 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 11 August 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 10 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
- 44607
- 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