Appeal 3365762
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
an open porch.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for an open porch at [site address] , [site address] , Downe, Orpington, Bromley [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/00317/FULL6 subject to the following conditions:
The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing no’s: Location Plan (Scale 1:1250), Block Plan (BB/JB001), [name] (BB/JB005), [name] (BB/JB003) and Existing/[name] (JB/006).
The external materials of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host building, a locally listed building and the area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site is situated in the rural area which is formed of small groups of buildings set amongst open areas of land which provides for a verdant, spacious character to the area. The appeal and neighbouring buildings on this terrace date from the Victorian period and are of a traditional style and materials. The traditional vernacular to the built form and the rural setting contributes to the character, appearance and special interest of this non-designated heritage asset.
The proposed porch would be situated on the northern elevation of the appeal dwelling. Although the Council has referenced it as a large addition, it would only extend across part of this elevation of the appeal building, with a limited projection from it of around 1m. It would have an asymmetric design, but this reflects the asymmetric form of the single storey element of the appeal building.
The porch would be seen from [site address] but only in narrow vantage points, given the established vegetation along the sides of the road. In such views, it would be seen against the wide variance that exists on the northern elevation of this terrace, in terms of the size, design and the materials of extensions. Furthermore, given the size and the largely open form of the proposal, it would not appear unduly large or prominent and its design reflects the asymmetry of the rear single storey element of the appeal dwelling.
As such, I conclude that the proposal would be acceptable in terms of its effect on the character and appearance of the host building and the area. It would therefore comply with Policies 6, 37 and 39 of the Bromley Local Plan (January 2019), which seek, amongst other matters, for the scale, form and materials of construction to respect and complement those of the host dwelling and be compatible with development in the surrounding area. It would also not be contrary to Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) which seeks development that is sympathetic to local character.
Section 05
[name]
The appeal site is situated in the Green Belt. The Council consider the proposal would not be inappropriate development and I have no reason to disagree.
Section 06
Conditions
I have considered the conditions suggested by the Council, having regard to the six tests set out in the Framework. I have imposed a condition requiring compliance with the approved plans and a materials condition is necessary in the interest of the character and appearance of the host building and the area.
Section 07
Conclusion
The proposal would accord with the development plan as a whole, and there are no other considerations, including the Framework, that indicate that I should take a decision other than in accordance with this. I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.
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 423No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 17 September 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 26 August 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3365762
- Application reference
- DC/25/00317/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
- 3 m²
- Number of residences
- 0
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- No
- Affects setting of a listed building
- Yes
- 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
- Allowed
- Decision category
- Allowed
- Received date
- 14 May 2025
- Valid date
- 19 May 2025
- Start date
- 20 May 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 7 March 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 17 September 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
- 76473
- 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