Appeal 3287044
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
5 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
a proposed first floor roof extension and erection of a single storey rear extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the development having regard to the character of the dwelling and the surrounding area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site comprises a detached chalet bungalow with off-street parking to the front, in a predominantly residential neighbourhood on the outskirts of Hythe. It is located in a prominent position near the junction between [address] and [address].
I saw at my site visit that there are myriad roof shapes and first floor extensions in the vicinity, of varying size, design and detailing. Within this context, to my mind the principle of extending the appeal dwelling with a first floor side element could be acceptable and need not appear incongruous.
However, I consider that the large and boxy extension the subject of this appeal would not be an appropriate solution. It would result in an element that would dominate the upper floor of the property, and fail to reflect the scale and 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 of the dwelling, and in design terms would lack architectural subtlety.
I am aware that there have been no objections to the proposal from local residents; however this does not outweigh the harm I have identified. As outlined above, I also note the numerous additions to other houses in the locality; nevertheless many of these properties are two-storey and semi-detached and of a significantly different character, size and form to the appeal dwelling. I have therefore dealt with the proposal on its merits. _________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________
I note that the Council does not object to the single storey rear addition to the house, and I have no reason to disagree. It would be of an acceptable design and appearance, with no adverse impacts on the public domain.
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 Policies HB1 and HB8 of the Folkestone & [name] and Policies Local Plan (September 2020), which seek to secure new development of acceptable scale and appearance.
Section 05
Conclusion
Having regard to all matters raised, the appeal is dismissed.
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
- 11 February 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 20 January 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3287044
- Application reference
- 21/1392/FH
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Folkestone and Hythe District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000112
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
- 14 m²
- Number of residences
- 0
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- No
- Affects setting of a listed building
- Not recorded
- Historic building grant made
- Not recorded
- Relates to a conservation area
- Not recorded
- Flooding is an issue
- Not recorded
- Site within an AONB
- Not recorded
- Site within an SSSI
- Not recorded
Decision and dates
The published outcome and every imported case date.
- Official decision
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 16 November 2021
- Valid date
- 16 November 2021
- Start date
- 9 December 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 24 August 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 11 February 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
- 10499
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:25
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21