Appeal 3288697
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
for a two-storey side extension and first floor rear extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
I consider the main issue to be the effect of the proposed development on the architectural integrity of the host property and thereby the character and appearance of the surrounding built environment.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property, [site address] , is a two-storey, detached, double fronted dwelling. It is located on a large and prominent corner plot.
The appellant proposes a two-storey side extension along with a first floor rear extension.
The proposed side extension would be built flush with the existing main street façade of the host property, without any set back. Consequently, although the ridge line of the proposed extension would be set lower than that of the existing dwelling, the extension would not appear as a subservient addition. Accordingly, the proposed side extension would detract from the established symmetry of the host property, causing harm to its character and appearance.
Furthermore, in order to achieve the lower ridge line, the pitch of the roof of the extension would be set at a shallower angle than that of the host property. This would make for a contrived and awkward junction between the two roofs.
The roof of the rear extension would essentially be a flat roof with a false pitched fascia. Although, to some extent, the pitched fascia would soften the line of the flat roof it would nevertheless make for a very utilitarian and bulky roof line that in turn would detract from the three-dimensional form of the roof of the host property. Thereby causing further harm to the architectural integrity of the host property.
In addition, the side and rear first floor extensions would bring the building, as extended at that level much closer to its boundary to [address]. The effect of which would be to significantly reduce the spacious setting of the dwelling here. Thereby, resulting in an imposing and prominent form of development, that would cause harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding built environment.
I therefore conclude in respect of the main issue that the proposed development would be harmful to the architectural integrity of the host property and the character and appearance of the surrounding built environment. To allow it would be contrary to the objectives of Policy QD02 of the Thanet District Council Local Plan ([name] 2020) and the National Planning Policy Framework as they relate to amongst other things the quality of design and the requirement for development to respect and enhance the character of the area.
Section 05
Conclusions
For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be 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 1184No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 2 March 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 8 February 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3288697
- Application reference
- FH/TH/21/1187
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Thanet District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000114
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
- 1
- 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
- 9 December 2021
- Valid date
- 9 December 2021
- Start date
- 7 January 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 21 September 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 2 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
- 11550
- 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