Appeal 3282717
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 worksOne-off service · No subscription
Similar appeals are evidence to inspect, not a prediction of your outcome.
Official decision document
The decision, section by section
6 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
for the proposed construction of a two storey side extension. Construction of a part two storey part single storey rear extension with associated external alterations to existing side projection.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
[name]
At my site visit, I saw that development has commenced on an alternative scheme; I have dealt with the appeal separately on its merits.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character of the dwelling and the surrounding area.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal site relates to a two-storey, semi-detached house located in a prominent position on the outside bend of [address]. The surrounding area is residential in nature.
The overall height of the scheme would continue the ridge line of the existing property. As a result the development would lack subservience and dominate the upper floor of the house. This would be in contrast to the existing building, and compete with its overall scale.
The first floor side addition would project beyond the flank wall of the host dwelling, and result in an awkward hipped roof element where it adjoins the gable end of the main house. This would create visual confusion, introducing a disjointed form that would not be cohesive with the existing house and detract from its appearance. Overall, the proposal would result in a development that would fail to reflect the proportions of the host dwelling. It would be clearly visible from the wider streetscene, having a jarring effect by virtue of its scale and extent across the first floor and roof of the property, and in design terms would lack architectural subtlety. _________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________
I acknowledge the appellant's desire to make improvements to the layout of the dwelling to meet living requirements and can only offer my sympathies having regard to the personal matters leading to the application. Nonetheless, these issues do not outweigh the planning harm I have identified above.
The appellant states that extra windows could be inserted in the flank wall to break up the elevation, however I have no plans before me to demonstrate this. Moreover, I am not persuaded that such alterations would resolve the concerns I have reasoned previously.
I conclude that the scheme would result in harm to the character and appearance of the dwelling and the surrounding area. It would be conflict with Policy BNE1 of the Medway Local Plan May 2003, which seeks to secure new development of acceptable scale and appearance. It would also be inconsistent with the advice in the National Planning Policy Framework, which states that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development.
Section 06
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the appeal fails.
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 212No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 18 March 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 17 February 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3282717
- Application reference
- MC/21/1321
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Medway Council
- Planning authority code
- E06000035
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
- 1. Refused planning permission
- Appeal reason
- Refusal
- Type detail
- Planning Appeals - Full
- Jurisdiction
- Transferred
- Link status
- Not Linked
Site and development
Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.
- Site area
- Not recorded
- Floor space
- 217 m²
- Number of residences
- 0
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- No
- Affects setting of a listed building
- No
- Historic building grant made
- No
- Relates to a conservation area
- No
- Flooding is an issue
- No
- Site within an AONB
- No
- Site within an SSSI
- No
Decision and dates
The published outcome and every imported case date.
- Official decision
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 10 September 2021
- Valid date
- 1 October 2021
- Start date
- 17 November 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 13 July 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 18 March 2022
Case administration
Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.
- Redetermined
- No
- Bespoke
- No
- 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
- Horizon
- Dataset status
- Current release
- Catalogue record ID
- 12534
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:26
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21