Skip to main content
Official casework recordAllowedCurrent release

Appeal 6000157

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 works

One-off service · No subscription

Similar appeals are evidence to inspect, not a prediction of your outcome.

Official decision document

The decision, section by section

4 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

part one/part two storey front and side extensions at [site address] , Chislehurst, Bromley [postcode] Application Ref: DC/24/03580/FULL6

  1. Section 02

    Reasons

    The significance of the CCA, insofar as it relates to the appeal site, is predominantly derived from the sloping topography of the long valleys, often with steep banks, that surround the centrally located plateau of Commons. The backdrop of woodland areas to the built form, interspersed with substantial mature trees, envelop the large, detached dwellings commonplace along [address], including the appeal site, on the steep slopes of one such valley. The broadly consistent scale of the properties in the area, together with their generous plots, significant, staggered setbacks, elevated positions relative to the road and woodland features create a spacious, verdant character. Although gaps between the side elevations of the dwellings are narrow, this contrast in the spatial relationship of the built form does not detract from the area’s sylvan character.

    The proposed front extension would maintain the width of the existing gap between the host property and the side elevation of [address] (No.19) adjacent, thereby retaining the relationship of the built form and visual connections to the woodland areas from the road. Although its façade would be sited closer to the road than this part of the existing dwelling, it would remain setback from the main front elevation, ensuring the proposed addition is subservient to the host property. This, combined with its modest increase in bulk, ensures the alteration would not harm the character or appearance of the dwelling or the street scene.

    The proposed rear extension would also maintain the existing gap with [address] (No.23). Nor would it extend beyond the rear building line of the host property, at either ground floor or first floor level, retaining the overall pattern of development in the area.

    In accordance with my statutory duty1 to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area, I conclude that the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the CCA. It also accords with the policies cited in the decision notice. 1 As at s72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 Issue – the effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers of No.19, with regard to outlook and No.23, with regard to outlook, daylight and sunlight.

    The proposed front two storey extension would be sited forward of the front elevation of No.19, whilst the size of the gap between the host property and the side elevation of No.19 is maintained. Although there is a bedroom window at first floor level in the façade of No.19 from which the proposed extension would be visible, any reduction in outlook as a result would be minimal and at an oblique angle. As such, it would not result in a harmful sense of enclosure or loss of outlook from this bedroom.

    Whilst the proposed rear two storey extension would be visible from the closest first floor bedroom window of No.23, any reduction in outlook from it would be insignificant, particularly given the existing tall trees located on this boundary which already frame this view. Although one of the neighbouring property’s conservatories is located close to this side boundary, the extension would maintain the gap between the side elevation of No.23 and the host property’s existing side projection, together with continuing its height and roof slope angle. Therefore, any loss of sunlight reaching the garden area of No.23 or loss of daylight reaching the conservatory would largely be amalgamated into the shadows which already result from the existing tall trees on this boundary.

    Given the distance between the proposed first floor terrace, the intervening trees and the sloping topography of the area, I see no reason to conclude that there would be a harmful loss of privacy to neighbouring occupiers of No.[address] is in use. Therefore, it is not necessary for me to impose a condition requiring a privacy screen to be erected.

    The proposal would not harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers of No.19, with specific regard to outlook and No.23, with specific regard to outlook, daylight and sunlight and accords with the policies cited in the decision notice.

  2. Section 03

    Conditions

    The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. Reason: to comply with the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004

    The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos: 21YESTER/P/A/002; and 21YESTER/P/B/002. Reason: to provide certainty.

    The external materials of the extensions hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling. Reason: to preserve the character and appearance of the area, including the CCA.

  3. Section 04

    Conclusion

    The development complies with 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
    20 May 2025 (page 1)

Reference and authority

Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.

Case reference
6000157
Application reference
24/03580/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
47 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
Allowed
Decision category
Allowed
Received date
12 March 2025
Valid date
12 March 2025
Start date
18 March 2025
Planning authority decision date
6 February 2025
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
70750
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