Appeal 6000175
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
Vehicular and pedestrian gates at front of property at [site address] , Bromley, Orpington [postcode] . Application Ref: DC/25/00216/FULL6
Section 02
Reasons
The appeal site forms part of the [address], [name]. The significance of which stems, at least partially, from the pattern and form of development within it. Much of this development was originally inspired by the Garden City movement. A result of which is that housing in the CA is often within a spacious ‘green’ setting.
The houses within some parts of the CA retain an open plan frontage. However, the front gardens of the houses closest to the appeal site are more typically largely enclosed by thick and tall hedgerows and/or a range of mainly low walls and fences of varying designs and materials. Nevertheless, and notwithstanding the resultant degree of enclosure of these front gardens, the part of the CA close to the appeal site retains a spacious and verdant character and appearance. In part, this is due to the hedgerows, the large street trees, and the wide road, pavements, and verges in this area.
Although the closed gates would extend across a large part of the frontage of the appeal site, the development would not require the removal of trees or the reduction of hedgerows. The gates would also be lower than and set back from the existing wall along part of the site frontage, and their height would accord with 3.30 of the Council’s supplementary Guidance for the CA1. For these reasons, and because of the spaces between the railings of the gates, the development would not harmfully reduce the openness of the area or the contribution that the site 1 The London Borough of Bromley – Supplementary Planning Guidance for [address], Petts Wood Conservation Area makes to the significance of the CA. Instead, and for the same reasons, it would preserve the character and the appearance of the CA.
Consequently, the development would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to the significance of the CA, and it would accord with the development plan policies cited on the decision notice.
Section 03
Other matter
The presence of an Article 4 direction removing permitted development rights for certain developments within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse - including gates, does not necessarily mean that all such works would be harmful. In this case, the development would not harm the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to the significance of the CA. As such, the Article 4 direction related to gates and means of enclosure does not justify the dismissal of this appeal.
Section 04
Conclusion
The proposal complies with the development plan as a whole and nothing indicates a decision otherwise.
Section 05
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 nos; Location Plan produced 21-Jan-2025 and 266CHISRD/P/002.
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 2706No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 15 July 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 24 June 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 6000175
- Application reference
- DC/25/00216/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
- 748 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
- 26 March 2025
- Valid date
- 26 March 2025
- Start date
- 7 April 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 19 March 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 15 July 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
- 73014
- 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