Appeal 3300006
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
No verified development description has been extracted from an official decision PDF yet.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character of the surrounding area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site relates to a detached two-storey house located on [address], in an neighbourhood that is predominantly residential in nature. The appeal residence in particular is set relatively far back into its plot, with a large front garden area.
The proposed triple garage and attic accommodation would be sited forward of the host property and, despite the retention of existing trees and the erection of the front boundary wall, would be clearly evident from the public domain primarily due to its excessive mass, bulk, height and proximity to the road. To my mind, the scheme would erode the spacious character of the locale and would have a dominant effect over the front garden of the appeal site.
I recognise that the proposed use of the building would be incidental to the enjoyment of the host dwelling and fenestration details and matching materials would complement the main house. I also appreciate the appellant's wish to securely store building equipment and vehicles. However, these matters do not outweigh the harm I have identified above or justify the sheer scale of the proposal.
I am also aware that the development would retain some existing trees and that it could moreover be screened with hedging. This notwithstanding, any such planting would need to be of a height, extent and density that of itself would look unusual or out of place along a domestic frontage within this suburban setting. _________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________
I observed on my site visit that, amongst other things, there is a double garage to the fore of [address]. Nevertheless, this element is significantly smaller than the triple garage and office proposed by this appeal. In any event, outbuildings within the curtilages of 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 surrounding area. It would fail to accord with Policies BNE1 and BNE43 of the Medway Local Plan May 2003, which seek 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 05
Conclusion
Due to my reasoning and 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
- 12 December 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 17 November 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3300006
- Application reference
- MC/22/0310
- 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
- 28 May 2022
- Valid date
- 28 May 2022
- Start date
- 16 June 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 5 April 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 12 December 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
- 24991
- 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