Appeal 3292957
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
No verified development description has been extracted from an official decision PDF yet.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
[name]
Although submitted separately, I note that this appeal runs concurrently with an appeal for a virtually identical scheme to the adjoining single storey garage at [address] (ref. APP/K2230/D/22/3292909).
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 detached, two-storey dwelling sited on [address] with a driveway and off-street parking to the front. The surrounding area is predominantly residential in nature.
The existing garage is single storey in nature, and when viewed from the public highway has the appearance of an ancillary outbuilding that is proportionate and subservient to the main residence.
The introduction of the first floor over the existing garage would result in a significant increase in height and mass. This would be prominent and of a size and scale that would compete with the dimensions of the dwelling. The close proximity of the garage and the house would result in a discordant relationship, whereby the subordination of the garage would be lost. Overall, the extent of the proposal would lack architectural subtlety. This would be detrimental to the character of the property and the surrounding area. _________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________
I saw at my site visit that there is no prevailing design style in the vicinity; the neighbourhood is characterised by dwellings of various size and detailing. Nonetheless, where outbuildings occur they are of relatively diminutive scale when seen against their host property, and within this context the appeal scheme would appear out of keeping.
I recognise that that there would be no adverse impacts on the living conditions of the occupants of other houses, that the development could be constructed at the same time as the adjoining appeal at no. 345, the proposal would use materials to match the dwelling, there have been no objections from local residents, and the scheme would provide enlarged accommodation for the appellant and his family. However, these issues do not overcome the harm I have identified above.
I conclude that the scheme would result in harm to the character and appearance of the dwelling and the surrounding area. It would conflict with Policy CS19 of the Gravesham Local Plan Core Strategy 2014, which seeks to secure new development of acceptable scale and appearance. It would also be inconsistent with the National Planning Policy Framework which states that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development.
Section 06
Conclusion
Accounting for my reasoning and all issues 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
- 5 September 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 16 August 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3292957
- Application reference
- 20211356
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Gravesham Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000109
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
- 25 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 February 2022
- Valid date
- 16 February 2022
- Start date
- 4 March 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 9 January 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 5 September 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
- Not recorded
- 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
- 20201
- 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