Appeal 3287138
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 retrospective permission for the construction of an L shape dormer to rear with insertion of juliet balcony and roof lights to front to provide additional living accommodation within roof space.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
[name]
At my site visit, I saw that the development has been completed and I note that the application has been submitted retrospectively.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the development having regard to the character of the dwelling and the surrounding area.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal site relates to a semi-detached house on [address] with a driveway to the side accessing a block of communal garages to the rear. The local neighbourhood is predominantly residential in nature.
The development is clearly evident from the side access, communal garage area and surrounding rear gardens of other properties in the vicinity. The height of the dormer extension continues the ridge line of the existing property, and due to the external cladding the flank and rear elevations slightly overhang the main dwelling below.
Given its size and relationship with the host building, the addition lacks any sense of subservience. The imposing appearance of the extension results in dominant and boxy roof form, which is in contrast to the existing dwelling, and competes with its overall scale. Overall, the development represents an obtrusive addition to the detriment of the character of the dwelling and the locality. _________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________
I acknowledge those other matters that have been advanced in support of the development, including the assertions that the addition results in improvements to the layout of the dwelling to meet living requirements, there have been no objections from local residents and that the scheme meets the Building Regulations. I also sympathise with the appellant's position and recognise that this is a stressful situation. However, none of these points could justify the harm I have identified above.
I also recognise the presence of other roof forms in the neighbourhood with similar cladding. However, the photos provided by the appellant show dormers set within the roofslopes, away from the flank walls and eaves. In any event, additions to other houses would be neutral considerations in any balance against planning harm, and I am mindful that each case must be assessed on its own merits.
I conclude that the scheme would result in harm to the character and appearance of the dwelling and the surrounding area. It would be in 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
Having regard to all matters raised and based on my reasoning above, 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
- 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
- 3287138
- Application reference
- MC/21/2031
- 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
- Not recorded
- 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
- 17 November 2021
- Valid date
- 17 November 2021
- Start date
- 10 December 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 15 September 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
- 12548
- 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