Skip to main content
Official casework recordAllowedCurrent release

Appeal 6000274

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

7 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

described on the planning application form as ‘Retrospective planning application for conversion of existing garage and gym into granny annex’.

  1. Section 02

    Decision

    The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for conversion of existing garage and gym into granny annex to be occupied only as part of the dwelling known as [site address] at [site address] [postcode] in accordance with the terms of application [name]/23/00636/FULL6, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the followings conditions:

    The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing number EX.01.

  2. Section 03

    Preliminary Matters

    I have taken the description in the banner heading above, from the planning application form. However, in my formal decision I have omitted words which are not acts of development and included additional wording to reflect the basis on which I have determined the appeal. I will return to this matter later

    The planning application was submitted retrospectively and I understand that at the time of my site visit, the appeal development was occupied by carers.

    The appeal site is located within the Green Belt. There is no dispute between the main parties that the appeal development constitutes the re-use of a building that is of permanent and substantial construction. There is also no dispute that as the siting, scale and mass of the appeal development is not materially different from its use as a garage and gym, it would preserve the openness of the Green Belt and not conflict with the purposes of including land within it. I have undertaken a site visit and find no reason to disagree. The appeal development is therefore not inappropriate development in the Green Belt with reference to Paragraph 154 h) iv of the National Planning Policy Framework.

  3. Section 04

    Main Issue

    The main issue in this appeal is whether the development comprises a use which is part and parcel of the main dwelling or a new self-contained dwelling.

  4. Section 05

    Reasons

    The host dwelling is a detached property located in large grounds with a substantial driveway and parking area to the front and side. The building the subject of this appeal was formerly a double garage and gym. It is located close to, but detached from, the host dwelling.

    The appeal building has been converted to provide living accommodation comprising two bedrooms, a bathroom and a living area including a kitchen. There is a raised deck area to the rear providing an outdoor seating area. Access is provided from the driveway and parking area to the front of the property via a ramped access to a door on the side elevation.

    The degree of separation from the main house together with the living accommodation it provides means that it has the necessary facilities for independent living and could be occupied as a separate dwelling. At 58.[address] metres (sqm) of accommodation it is not a small unit, but it would fail to meet the minimum gross internal floor area of 61 sqm for a 2 bedroom, 3 person dwelling as set out in the ‘[name] - nationally described space standards’1. The Council say that this would lead to a dwelling which provides sub-standard accommodation leading to overdevelopment of the site, at odds with the character of the area.

    However, a new dwelling is not before me. The application form clearly refers to the use of the building as an annex and it is clear from the submissions accompanying both the planning application and the appeal that it is intended to provide accommodation to assist with the full time care of an occupier of the host dwelling.

    The annex has a functional connection with the main house. It is clear from the appellant’s submissions that it shares utilities with the main house and is not separately metered. The evidence indicates that the occupants of the property would provide care and support for occupiers of the host property providing a strong functional link between the two buildings.

    Despite being contained within a detached building, the annex also has a physical connection to the main house. It is attached to the main dwelling by a wall which forms the boundary with the rear garden of the main dwelling. Despite having its own private decking area to the rear, a gate provides direct access from the deck into the rear garden of the host dwelling. It shares the existing vehicular access and parking with the host dwelling and is visually well related to the host dwelling being immediately adjacent.

    [name] acknowledge that the annex contains facilities required for a separate dwelling, they are also the type of facilities you would expect to see in a residential annex. I have also found that in this instance the annex has a physical, functional and visual relationship with the host dwelling. Accordingly, the concerns of the Council relating to the overdevelopment and over intensification of the site do not arise. 1 Department for Communities and Local Government March 2015

    The proposal does not conflict with Policies 7 and 37 of the Bromley Local Plan adopted January 2019 which relate to extensions to provide accommodation for family members and the need for a healthy living environment for future occupiers.

  5. Section 06

    Conditions

    As the work has already been carried out, it is not necessary to attach the standard time condition. However, it is necessary to specify the approved plans in the interests of certainty.

    I have amended the description of development in my formal decision to reflect that the annex is to be occupied as part and parcel of the main house. Accordingly, a condition to ensure that the building is only occupied as annex is not necessary as a material change of use to a separate dwelling would require the grant of planning permission.

  6. Section 07

    Conclusion

    For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

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 564No official casework-database value to compare
    Extracted decision date · page 1
    26 September 2025Matches the official casework database
    Extracted site visit dates
    9 September 2025 (page 1)

Reference and authority

Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.

Case reference
6000274
Application reference
DC/23/00636/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
1 m²
Number of residences
Not recorded
Site in Green Belt
Yes
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
16 May 2025
Valid date
16 May 2025
Start date
23 May 2025
Planning authority decision date
25 February 2025
Appeal decision date
26 September 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
77012
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