London Borough of Bromley appeal evidence
Refused under permitted development in Bromley?
Learn what the selected Bromley examples say about GPDO tests, neighbours and the appearance of extra storeys.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 5 of 510
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 1
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 4
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 4
- of 5 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
GPDO checks behind Bromley refusals
Appeal 638 gives only a conclusion, so it cannot show why the Inspector allowed that proposal.
Counted against appeals
Where GPDO proposals fell short
Class Q test was not met
The Inspector concluded the proposal did not satisfy Class Q.1(a), so it was not permitted development.
Neighbour outlook was affected
The Inspector cited potential overbearing impact and loss of outlook for the occupiers of No.9.
External appearance was unacceptable
The Inspector concluded the extra storey’s external appearance was unacceptable, so prior approval could not be given.
Helped or needed
Allowed fence appeal: conclusion only
No stated basis for allowance
Appeal 638 concludes that the appeal should be allowed, but the displayed conclusion does not explain why.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal name the GPDO class and paragraph it says your proposal fails?
- Does it identify overbearing impact or lost outlook for a named neighbour?
- Does it describe an unacceptable change to your home’s external appearance?
Appeals 89672, 26953, 83008, 81863 and 638 span Class Q, Class AA and a fence, limiting like-for-like comparison. 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
1 example
13 July 2021 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
construction of 2 summerhouses to rear garden and replacement fence.
Issue identified by the Inspector
With regard to the proposed fence, it would have an overall height of 1.8m and would incorporate a lattice top. I note that the planning officer’s report to Committee acknowledges that the proposed boundary fence could be constructed under permitted development rights as it would be under 2 metres in height. Nevertheless, it does form part of the appeal proposal.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.
Paragraph 16 · Source page 4
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
2 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as change the use of current agricultural building into a dwelling house and associated building works.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • whether the proposed development would constitute permitted development, having regard to whether the requirements of Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q paragraph Q.1(a) of the GPDO would be met; and • if so, whether prior approval would be required in accordance with the relevant conditions set out in [name].2(1) of the GPDO.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
For the above reasons, I therefore conclude that, as a matter of fact and degree and based on the evidence before me, the proposal would not satisfy the requirements of Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q.1(a) of the GPDO, and therefore is not development permitted by it.
Paragraph 20 · Source page 4
24 January 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
construction of upward extension to provide one additional storey above the existing dwellinghouse (maximum height of 8.02m).
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this appeal are whether prior approval should be granted under Class AA of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO, having particular regard to the effect of the proposal on: (i) the external appearance of the dwellinghouse; and (ii) the amenity of adjoining premises.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I have concluded that the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on the external appearance of the dwellinghouse having regard to the site context in this particular instance. Therefore, prior approval cannot be given under AA.2(3)(a)(ii) of Class AA of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO. The appeal is therefore dismissed.
Paragraph 14 · Source page 3
20 January 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘A new floor will be added to the existing house at [site address] , as part of the planned development. The extension was carefully planned to fit in with the rest of the neighbourhood's style while having as little of an effect as possible on nearby homes.’
Issue identified by the Inspector
Based on the above, the main issues in this appeal are whether prior approval should be granted having regard to the proposed development’s effect on the external appearance of the dwellinghouse and on the amenity of any adjoining premises.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
To conclude, the proposal would harm the amenity of occupiers of the adjoining premises of No.9 due to potential overbearing impact and loss of outlook caused by the additional storey extension. This would conflict with section AA.2(3)(a)(i) of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA of the GPDO as well as paragraph 135 of the Framework which advises that proposals should ensure a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.
Paragraph 12 · Source pages 2, 3
18 December 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
construction of upward extension to provide one additional storey above the existing dwellinghouse (maximum height of 10.94m).
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether prior approval should be granted as to the external appearance of the dwellinghouse, including the impact on the surrounding area.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would not comply with Policies 6 and 37 of the Council’s Local Plan (adopted 2019), insofar as they are relevant to this matter of prior approval. These policies are however not in themselves determinative, as by introducing Class AA permitted development rights, the Government clearly envisaged that there would be a degree of change to certain residential properties. That being said, such rights are qualified by the need to apply for prior approval, as set out above.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2