Appeal 6000098
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
described on the application form as ‘Single storey rear extension, extending beyond the rear wall of the original house by 5.95m, for which the maximum height would be 3.15m, and for which the height of the eaves would be 2.90m (42 [name] for Householder Permitted Development Prior Approval).
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
[name]
I have taken the description of the proposed development from the Council’s decision notice as it more succinctly reflects the proposal before me than the one provided on the planning application form.
Section 04
Background and Main Issue
Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (‘the GDPO’) permits the enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse subject to a number of limitations.
The Council considers that the extension would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse and would have a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse, thereby not complying with the limitations set out in A.1. (j) (iii) of the GPDO.
Consequently, the main issue in this appeal is whether the proposed development constitutes permitted development.
Section 05
Reasons
The existing two storey semi-detached dwelling has a single storey projection on the rear elevation There is no dispute between the parties that this is an original part of the dwelling1. 1 Paragraph 2.2 of the [name] of Case
A number of the properties in the vicinity of the appeal site have similar projections from the rear, consisting of rendered walls under a hipped tiled roof. The prevalence of these projections together with the use of materials and details which match those used on the main house, leads me to conclude that on the evidence before me, the single storey projection on the rear does form part of the original building2.
The side wall of the projection would constitute a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse. The proposed rear extension would extend across the full width of the rear elevation of the dwelling.
I therefore conclude on the evidence before me, that the proposed extension would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse and would have a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse, thereby not complying with the limitations set out in A.1. (j) (iii) of the GPDO.
The proposed extension would not constitute permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO. As the proposal does not constitute permitted development, the appeal fails. I do not need to go on and consider the effect on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupier, which was the Council’s other reason for refusal.
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 564No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 22 May 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 20 May 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 6000098
- Application reference
- DC/24/03867/HHPA
- 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
- Not recorded
- Appeal reason
- refused
- Type detail
- No Application Type Assocaited
- Jurisdiction
- No Jurisdiction Associated
- Link status
- Not recorded
Site and development
Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.
- Site area
- 0 hectares
- Floor space
- 33 m²
- Number of residences
- Not recorded
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- Not recorded
- 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
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 27 January 2025
- Valid date
- 27 January 2025
- Start date
- 27 January 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 12 November 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 22 May 2025
Case administration
Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.
- Redetermined
- Not recorded
- Bespoke
- Not recorded
- Date recovered
- Not recorded
- Date not recovered or derecovered
- Not recorded
- Call-in date
- Not recorded
- Costs applied for
- No
- 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
- Back Office
- Dataset status
- Current release
- Catalogue record ID
- 69893
- 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