Appeal 3344919
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
described as ‘proposed demolish existing conservatory and erection of rear part single and double storey extension. Garage conversion and front elevation alterations.’
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Appeal Procedure
The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.
Section 04
[name] and Main Issue
The Council’s reason for refusal refers to the proposed two storey extension, implying that they do not object to the scheme’s other elements. I have no reason to disagree and my recommendation focusses on the same, specifically its effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No [address] with particular regard to outlook.
Section 05
Reasons for the Recommendation
The appeal property sits close No [address] with only a small distance between each side elevation. The buildings are large but have short rear gardens. The extension would stretch along half of No 16’s side boundary. Whilst satisfying a 45 degree line from its rear windows, this projection would exist very close to and somewhat loom over the garden space to its immediate rear. The end boundary to No 16’s garden is heavily landscaped with mature trees. This and the relatively small size of the garden would exacerbate the hemmed in feel exuded by the extension. The projection, proximity and height of the extension would, for these reasons, detrimentally affect the outlook from the rear garden of No 16. This would create an unacceptably poor standard of living conditions for its occupiers.
The two-storey aspect of the proposal would not extend out as far as the single storey section. This would however be by a negligible amount and insufficient to acceptably reduce the harm it would cause as a whole. As a consequence, it would conflict with Policies 6 and 37 of the Bromley Local Plan (2019) which seeks to ensure amongst other things, that the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring buildings is protected.
Section 06
Other Matters
The appellant has raised concern that the measurements referred to in the Council’s officer report are incorrect. I have however taken into account the submitted plans and what I observed on site which was sufficient for me to form a view and come to the above conclusions. The garden that would remain for the appeal building would be more than sufficient in size terms for the occupiers thereof albeit I note this was not a contentious matter in the appeal.
Section 07
Conclusion and Recommendation
For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme would conflict with the development plan and there are no material considerations worthy of sufficient weight that would indicate departing therefrom. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.
Section 08
Inspector’s Decision
I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis 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 1895No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 12 August 2024Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 30 July 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3344919
- Application reference
- DC/24/00811/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
- 73 m²
- 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
- 23 May 2024
- Valid date
- 23 May 2024
- Start date
- 26 June 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 2 May 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 12 August 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
- 55496
- 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