Appeal 6000136
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
2 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
first floor front and rear extension at [site address]
Section 02
Issue – effect on the character and appearance of the area
The first-floor extension to the front of the host property would result in the loss of an oriole window and the existing first floor setback of the façade, features which are commonplace in the street, including on the mirrored dwelling at the other end of the short terrace within which the host property is located. As a result, the proposal would harm the symmetry and rhythm established by the terraced row, together with removing an interesting architectural feature.
Although differing roof types and angles of slope are visible within the street scene, the predominant form above entrance porches and front doors comprises a small sloped and tiled roof. The proposal’s flat roof at the front of the host property would, therefore, introduce an incongruous feature into the street scene which would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the area.
The fact that other dwellings in the street have been extended and altered is not a reason to permit unacceptable development, even if such additions comprise larger forms than the appeal scheme. Furthermore, whilst the principle of extensions within the Borough maybe acceptable, this is on the basis that they are in keeping with the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area.
The proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to the policies cited in the decision notice.
The social, economic and environmental benefits which would be derived from the proposal would be small given its scale and primarily for the benefit of the appellant. Such benefits do not outweigh the harm identified above.
The proposal is contrary to the development plan as a whole and nothing indicates a decision should be made otherwise.
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 3913No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 6 June 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 21 May 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 6000136
- Application reference
- 24/03415/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
- 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
- 500 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
- 19 February 2025
- Valid date
- 19 February 2025
- Start date
- 25 February 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 16 December 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 6 June 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
- 70749
- 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