Appeal 3308241
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 and appearance of the existing dwelling and the surrounding area.
Section 04
Reasons
[site address] is a two-storey, semi-detached residence with off-street parking to the front and a double detached garage to the side. It is situated in a neighbourhood that is predominantly residential in nature.
The two-storey flank element of the scheme would extend to the side and rear; it would be set back from the front and rear elevations of the existing dwelling, and the ridge line would be below that of the host property.
Although the proposed addition would therefore have elements of subservience, the splayed design linking the house with the double garage would represent an awkward, disjointed arrangement. The pitch of the new roof would project at an oblique angle from the side wall of the host property, and by not matching the front-to-back pitches of the house and garage, would create visual confusion and detract from the appearance of the existing dwelling.
At my site visit I saw that [address] has a two-storey side extension, which was approved by the Council in the mid 1980s. From the public domain a roof form of similar nature to the principal house is visible, and I consider that it has integrated successfully when viewed in the context of the house and immediate vicinity. Consequently, it is not comparable to the appeal scheme before me. _________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________
I appreciate that there are no adverse impacts on the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring houses, that the proposal would be constructed in materials to match the existing dwelling, there have been no objections from local residents or the Parish Council, and the internal layout would be enlarged to meet the needs of the appellants' family. However, none of these points would outweigh the harm that I have identified above.
I consider that the proposal would result in harm to the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and the surrounding area. It would be contrary to Policies DM1 and DM9 of the Maidstone Borough Local Plan October 2017 and the Council's Residential Extensions Guidelines Supplementary Planning Document (2009), which seek 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 05
Conclusion
Having regard to the above and 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 212No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 20 March 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 22 February 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3308241
- Application reference
- 22/502488/FULL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Maidstone Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000110
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
- 50 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
- 4 October 2022
- Valid date
- 4 October 2022
- Start date
- 24 January 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 29 July 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 20 March 2023
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
- 29902
- 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