Appeal 3307701
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
4 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
described as ‘first floor loft conversion and single storey side extension’.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal building, No. [address], is a single storey semi-detached dwelling located in Whitstable. The street scene is characterised by dwellings of varying size, including semi-detached bungalows and houses. Most dwellings are of a similar architectural style, however there are some variations in their design details. Whilst there are some examples of rear dormers in the area, there are very few alterations to the front roof slopes of dwellings.
The appeal scheme seeks planning permission for a single storey side extension together with alterations to roof to allow accommodation in roof space including a dormer to front elevation. However, this would introduce an alien feature within this part of the street scene. The incongruous roof dormer within the front roof slope would therefore be at odds with the prevailing pattern of development in the street scene and be out of keeping with its character and appearance.
I note the Appellant’s point that there are a few limited examples elsewhere in the area where front facing dormers are found. It is not clear how these examples arose, but in any case it is clear that they are the exception where found in very limited cases. Moreover, I have assessed the appeal proposal on the basis of the scheme before me and found that it would be unacceptable on its own merits.
Accordingly, I find that the proposed development would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policies DBE3 and DBE6 of the Canterbury District Local Plan 2017, which, amongst other aims, seek to permit alterations and extensions to buildings which are not detrimental to the character of the locality and streetscape.
For the reasons given above 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 5458No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 30 December 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 16 December 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3307701
- Application reference
- CA/22/01108
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Canterbury City Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000106
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
- Unknown
- 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
- 26 September 2022
- Valid date
- 12 October 2022
- Start date
- 8 November 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 14 September 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 30 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
- 25901
- 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