Appeal 6000196
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
Demolish existing garage and conservatory and construct a single storey side extension which is to include an extension to the main roof which will also include a barn end style roof design, a rear dormer window so that the roof space can be used as a habitable space, and roof windows to both the front and rear roof slopes at [site address] . Application Ref: DC/24/04464/FULL6.
Section 02
Issue – effect on the character and appearance of the area
The semi-detached dwellings in the area generally retain a pleasing balance with the other dwelling in the pair. As such, and notwithstanding the interspersed detached houses, they contribute positively to the rhythm of the streets they address.
Exterior alterations and extensions have previously been undertaken to the dwelling on the appeal site, the dwelling it is attached to, and to many other nearby semi-detached dwellings. However, some of these cannot be seen at the same time as the appeal site, and the form and scale of others have not harmfully reduced the balance between the pairs of dwellings they form part of.
The development would substantially widen the front gable, and the bulk of the main part of the dwelling would also be greatly enlarged. As a result, the parts of the dwelling that would be visible from the nearby road would be significantly larger than that of the dwelling it adjoins. Consequently, and notwithstanding the larger scale of the neighbouring detached house, and the location of the site on the outside of a bend in the road, the balance between the pair of semi-detached dwellings the appeal site is part of, would be harmfully eroded.
For the reasons given, the development would harm the character and appearance of the area, and it would be contrary to the development plan policies cited in the decision notice.
Section 03
Other matters
Even if no harm would be caused to the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties or to highway safety, these are neutral considerations.
Although no interested party objections have been provided in respect of the scheme, this consideration does not lead me away from my previous finding of harm.
Section 04
Conclusion
The development would conflict with the development plan as a whole, and nothing outweighs this.
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
- 4 July 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 23 June 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 6000196
- Application reference
- DC/24/04464/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
- Householder
- 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
- 200 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
- 6 April 2025
- Valid date
- 6 April 2025
- Start date
- 10 April 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 22 January 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 4 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
- 72428
- 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