Development Intent
AtlasBromleyPolicy37
Planning Atlas›Bromley›37
PolicyPoliticalCommitteeOfficersAgents & developersViabilityMapAppeals
Bromley · Local Plan · Policy

37 — General Design of Development.

How Bromley actually applies 37: who leans on it, where it bites hardest, and how often it's invoked. The policy text is the rule; this is the behaviour.

37 is a published Bromley planning policy. This page records where it appears in the council's published planning decisions.

Cited under: Bromley Local Plan (adopted)

Bromley · 37
Where 37 is quoted — by ward
Fewer ~0
More citations ~133
Showing
re-scopes the headline figures and the trend
1,545
times cited
in parsed decision notices
—
appeal survival
no PINS appeal decisions cite it
2 of 2
officer reach
100% of officers recorded in this period
Petts Wood & Knoll
top hotspot ward
133 citations
What this policy is about

Policy 37 requires all development proposals in Bromley to be of high design standard, meeting criteria such as good architectural quality, contributing to the street scene, and respecting heritage assets. This applies to all development proposals, including extensions to existing buildings. The council will resist proposals that do not meet these criteria and support those that do.

Plain-English summary of the adopted policy text below. The full text is the rule; this is the gist.

The policy — as adopted

General Design of Development

All development proposals, including extensions to existing buildings, will be expected to be of a high standard of design and layout. Developments will be expected to meet all of the following criteria where they are relevant: a -Be imaginative and attractive to look at, of a good architectural quality and should complement the scale, proportion, form, layout and materials of adjacent buildings and areas; b -Positively contribute to the existing street scene and/or landscape and respect important views, heritage assets, skylines, landmarks or landscape features; c -Space about buildings should provide opportunities to create attractive settings with hard or soft landscaping (including enhancing biodiversity); d -The relationship with existing buildings should allow for adequate daylight and sunlight to penetrate in and between buildings; e - Respect the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring buildings and those of future occupants, providing healthy environments and ensuring they are not harmed by noise and disturbance, inadequate daylight, sunlight, privacy or by overshadowing; f -The development should address sustainable design and construction and include where appropriate on-site energy generation; g - Suitable access should be provided for people with impaired mobility and meet the principles of inclusive design. Where necessary and relevant to the development, contributions may be sought to improve accessibility around the development; h -Security and crime prevention measures should be included in the design and layout of building and public areas; i - Recycling and waste storage facilities are incorporated within the design layout; j -Respect non designated heritage assets. Applications should be accompanied by a written statement setting out design principles and illustrative material showing the relationship of the development to the wider context.

Verbatim from the adopted Bromley plan · source document. The council's published plan is the authoritative version.

How it lands
93% in approvals · 7% in refusals
1,545 citations in the selected period
The approval/refusal split is subscriber intelligenceUnlock →
Where it bites
Petts Wood & Knoll133
Chislehurst125
Bickley & Sundridge109
What cites it — application types
all years on record · click a slice to filter
What it means in practice

Not filled in yet. This will hold how officers actually argue 37 case by case, classified from their decision reports — the classification pass hasn't run. Nothing is paraphrased in its place.

What the published record shows

37 appears most often in Petts Wood & Knoll, Chislehurst, Bickley & Sundridge. It appears across 2 of 2 officers recorded in this period. The map shows the pattern for the selected period.

Who cites it — case-officer spreadfrom parsed decision notices · click an officer
Who leans on this policy — and how often — is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Why it is cited — and what follows
93%
in approvals
1,438 citations
7%
in refusals
104 citations

This shows the decision reports in which 37 appears. It does not yet claim that the policy caused those outcomes; 3 citations sit outside the approval/refusal split.

Reason · role · consequence

Not filled in yet — the classification pass over the citing passages hasn't run. When it has, this shows why 37 was used, whether it supported approval or refusal, and what changed as a result. No conclusion is shown until that classification has been checked.

Why this policy is cited, and what follows, is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Does it hold up? — appeal performance

No Planning Inspectorate appeal decisions on record cite 37. When one lands (the appeals table refreshes each weekday), the dismissed/allowed record appears here — never estimated.

Related — follow the thread
Bromley
Back to the borough policy record
Open →
Committee record
What reaches members, and what they do with it
Open →
Case officers
Bromley's decision-makers
Open →
Citations, officer spread, ward and application-type counts parsed from published Bromley decision notices (high-confidence parses, approvals and refusals), joined to the canonical application record. One citation = one decision citing the policy. See the policy overview for every policy cited.

Atlas intelligence summarises patterns and observations from published planning records. Past decisions do not indicate how any future application will be determined. Every application is assessed on its own merits, having regard to the proposal, site, evidence and policies applying at the time. This information is provided for general information only and is not planning, legal, financial or professional advice.