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 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
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
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.
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.
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