London Borough of Bromley appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in Bromley?
See the design details in selected Bromley examples and compare them with your refusal.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 361 of 510
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 126
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 228
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 325
- of 361 matched records
AI-assisted. Cited sources and wording were checked before publication. Based on 5 source-linked examples shown below. Review method and limits.
Planning Data area point: Bromley LPA (51.371996, 0.051547). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
London Borough of Bromley appeal findings
Bromley character: gaps, fences and roof forms
The dismissed extracts state final harm findings rather than preceding design analysis. One allowed extract also records harm, so it is not a positive design comparator.
Counted against appeals
Dismissed Bromley examples: stated harm
Side extension found harmful
Appeal 88120 concluded that the side extension would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the area.
Timber fence found harmful
Appeal 81873 concluded that the timber fence would harm the character and appearance of the area.
Helped or needed
Bromley roof and gap details that helped
Keep the neighbouring gap
Appeal 47654 retained spacing beside No 7. The inspector found the scheme would respect the street scene.
Set the extension back
Appeal 47654 set the side extension behind the front roof slope, retaining the original hipped roof form.
Use a local roof form
Its half-hipped design reflected a locally prevalent feature without excessive bulk. Matching materials could be controlled by condition.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify a lost gap between buildings?
- Does it explain how the extension changes the original roof form?
- Does it say the roof or materials differ from nearby homes?
The selected dismissed extracts do not identify the precise physical feature that caused the stated harm. These decisions do not predict another result.
Appeal evidence examples
Compare allowed and dismissed appeal reasoning
Each example separates the development, the Inspector-stated issue that selected it, and the reasoning from the decision. Compare the facts as well as the outcome: these examples do not predict how a different proposal would be decided.
Allowed appeal examples
2 examples
25 June 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘the re-development of garages on site between and part behind No 2 and [address], to provide 1 pair of semi-detached dwellings, each 3B5P, and 1No single storey(2B4P) dwelling at the rear, and private amenity spaces, and alterations to existing dropped kerb.’
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
To conclude, for the reasons set out above, the scheme would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area. Given the small scale of the development, and the fact that the effect on the character and appearance would be relatively localised, I consider the degree of harm to be moderate. It would therefore be contrary to Policies 3, 4 and 37 of the London Borough of Bromley Local Plan (BLP) and Policies D3, D4 and H2 of the London Plan (LP). Collectively, amongst other things, these policies seek to ensure high quality design that respects the character, appearance and context of an area.
Paragraph 11 · Source pages 2, 3
5 March 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a loft conversion with the construction of a set back half gable and rear dormer with a crown roof.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the appeal property and surrounding area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The appeal proposal would retain the existing spacing with the unattached property to the side at No 7. In addition, the proposed side extension would be slightly recessed behind the existing front roof slope with the ridge tiles to the existing hipped roof to the front retained, thereby defining the form of the original roof to a degree and helping the extension overall to appear sufficiently subservient. The half-hipped roof design of the side extension would also reflect a design feature that is prevalent locally without excessive bulk, and would not look out of place. With the use of matching materials, which could be controlled by condition, I find overall that the proposal would respect and positively contribute to the street scene and would be in keeping with the character and appearance of the property and the wider established context of the ASRC.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
30 April 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as “demolition of existing rear extension and construction of two-storey side extension, garage conversion to habitable space, addition of front and rear rooflights with elevational alterations and formation of new vehicular access”.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Consequently, the appeal proposals would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the area. As such, they would conflict with Policies 6 and 37 of the Local Plan, London Borough of Bromley, Planning Division, 2019 and guidance contained in Policy DG5 (f) of the [name] of the Supplementary Planning Document, 2023 which, amongst other things, require new development to be of a high standard of design that compliments the scale and form of the host dwelling, whilst respecting or maintaining the space or gaps between buildings.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
18 December 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
timber fence fronting highway.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the appeal development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that the appeal development would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area. As such, it would not comply with Policy 37 of the Local Plan 2019 and Policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan 2021. Taken together, these seek that development is designed to the high standard and is in-keeping with the existing character of the area.
Paragraph 14 · Source page 3
18 August 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as a ‘[name].
Issue identified by the Inspector
The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
As such, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, it would fail to comply with Policies 6 and 37 of the Bromley Local Plan (2019), insofar as they require development to be of high-quality design that respects or compliments the host property.
Paragraph 6 · Source pages 1, 2