Appeal 3358822
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
7 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 ‘Existing garage conversion to a two storey granny annex with the new roof’.
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
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 05
Reasons for the Recommendation
The host dwelling is a two-storey, semi-detached property, with a catslide roof to the front elevation. It has a detached single storey outbuilding within its rear garden as well as a detached garage. The garage is accessed from [name]. The wider area is distinctly residential in character and dwellings in the immediate vicinity of the site on [address] and [name] are mainly two-storey. The garage sits within a part of the street characterised by the space between the dwellings on [address] and those on [address] and [address], with their rear gardens backing on to each other. Outbuildings are generally modest in height appearing subservient to their hosts. This hierarchy in scale gives order and consistency to the street scene and positively contributes to a spacious pattern of development.
The extended building’s two-storey scale together with the provision of windows at first floor level would have the overriding appearance of an independent dwelling rather than an outbuilding subservient to the host dwelling. While the appellant suggests the proposal would not exceed the height of the surrounding built forms and would optimise site capacity, it’s height, bulk and mass would be at odds with the generally modest scale of neighbouring outbuildings and the visual relationship of these structures with their hosts. Therefore, and even accounting for the use of sympathetic materials and joinery, the development would be an unduly dominant and incongruous addition. It would detract from the order, consistency and pattern of development at this location.
Thus, the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area and would conflict with Policies SP5 and DP11 of the Bexley Local Plan (2023) and Policies D3 and D4 of The London Plan (2021) which require that all development is of a high-quality design, protects local character and optimises capacity where development is of the most appropriate form that responds to a site’s context .
Section 06
Conclusion and Recommendation
For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.
Section 07
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 121No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted site visit dates
- 15 April 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3358822
- Application reference
- 24/02350/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
- 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
- 13 January 2025
- Valid date
- 13 January 2025
- Start date
- 23 January 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 4 November 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 21 July 2025
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
- 73289
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:28
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21