London Borough of Bromley appeal evidence
Refused for inappropriate Green Belt development in Bromley?
See the Green Belt harm, openness and building-size points raised in the selected Bromley examples.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 49 of 510
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 11
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 37
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 43
- of 49 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 Green Belt additions and openness
Among the selected examples, 3491 gives the officer’s position, not the Inspector’s full reasons for allowing the scheme.
Counted against appeals
Why Green Belt harm remained
Fallback carried little weight
In 17886, the Inspector concluded that a possible fallback scheme did not clearly outweigh Green Belt harm or limited loss of openness.
Underground storage did not preserve openness
In 82559, storing the helicopter lift underground and limiting public views still did not preserve Green Belt openness.
Helped or needed
What stopped additions being inappropriate
Additions stayed proportionate
In 17831, the alterations were not disproportionate to the original building, so the Inspector found no inappropriate Green Belt development.
No significant change to dwelling form
In 70166, the extension caused no significant detrimental change to the original dwellinghouse’s form, bulk or character.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify a disproportionate increase over the original building?
- What shows the proposal preserves Green Belt openness?
- Does the refusal identify a harmful change in form, bulk or character?
The selected example 82559 is a subterranean helicopter lift, so it is less direct for a home-extension refusal. 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
3 examples
15 July 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
erection of garden shed on land at side and installation of trellising on top of boundary fence
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in the appeal is: • Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’) and the development plan.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons, I find that the proposal would not comprise inappropriate development within the Green Belt as defined by the Framework and Policy 49 of the Local Plan. As the appeal property is a replacement dwelling, the proposal would not fully accord with Local Plan Policy 51 however, as explained above, the alterations would not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building, and would therefore be compliant with the main thrust of Policy 51 to prevent inappropriate development, and which in any case includes reference to ‘normally’ and is not a blanket restriction, I give any conflict in this regard therefore limited weight.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3
29 May 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
erection of single storey front extension to existing dwelling.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this appeal is whether the proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the Framework and relevant development plan policies.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons, the proposal would not harm visual amenities or the open or rural character of the locality and would not result in a significant detrimental change in the overall form, bulk or character of the original dwellinghouse. The proposal would therefore satisfy criteria (a)-(c) of BLP Policy 51. Therefore, the proposal would not result in a disproportionate addition to the appeal property and would not constitute inappropriate development within the Green Belt.
Paragraph 19 · Source page 3
21 September 2021 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
roof alterations for addition of first floor; demolition of side extension and erection of single storey side / rear extension, and reconstruction of front porch and elevational alterations.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether or not the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework 2021 (‘the Framework’) and any relevant development plan policies.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The officer’s report acknowledges that the appeal scheme would not infringe ‘a’ but contends that the proposal would conflict with ‘b’ and ‘c’ and on this basis concludes that the proposed alterations and additions would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Paragraph 147 of the Framework says this is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
2 examples
18 July 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
demolition of existing courtyard walls and patio area. Erection of single storey side and rear extension to facilitate home gym and office.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in the appeal are: • Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’) and the development plan. • The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; and • If the development would be inappropriate, whether the harm to the Green Belt by way of inappropriateness and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify it.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
It is concluded that the development would cause harm to the Green Belt by way of inappropriateness and some limited harm to openness. Balanced against that are the other considerations identified above. For the reasons given, I conclude that the likelihood of the erection of the fallback development as identified by the appellant carries only limited weight and does not therefore clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt. Therefore, there are no very special circumstances to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 21 · Source page 4
9 January 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
construction of a subterranean helicopter lift.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • whether the proposed development is inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and relevant development plan policies, including the effect on the openness and purposes of the Green Belt; and • whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to very special circumstances required to justify the appeal scheme.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I accept that storage underground would be the least visually impactful option and that public vantage points beyond the site would be limited. Whilst the harm to openness would therefore be minor, and even if the remainder of the garden remains open, the development would nonetheless fail to preserve the openness of the Green Belt and would thus conflict with the purposes of including land within it. Therefore, the scheme would not fall within the engineering operations exception outlined within LP Policy 49 and Framework paragraph 154 h) (ii).
Paragraph 21 · Source page 4