Appeal 3313137
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]
The Council refers to policies of the New Dover District Local Plan. This is currently at the examination stage and has not yet been adopted by the Council as part of its development plan. Accordingly, I can only give such policies limited weight in the decision-making process.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the development having regard to the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal site comprises a two-storey, detached house with off-street parking on the driveway to the front. The local neighbourhood is predominantly residential in nature.
Trimmingham is set in a row of other houses that display a degree of uniformity in terms of their relationship to the road, with the driveways and front elevations to each building being broadly visible from the public domain, which adds to the spacious context in which the appeal dwelling is viewed.
The proposed garage would be sited forward of the host property and would be clearly evident from the highway. The scheme would erode the spacious character of the locale due to its size and siting forward of the established building line on [site address] . The impact would be harmful to the relationship between residences and adjoining spaces, and thus the character and appearance of the area in what is a prominent location. _________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________
I recognise that the local area comprises an eclectic mixture of dwellings, varying in size, age, design, external finish and boundary treatments. However, this does would outweigh the harm identified above. I also appreciate that there may be other instances of detached garages in the front gardens of dwellings in the local area, and that the property known as the The Warren has a projecting single storey garage feature. Nevertheless, development at 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 am aware that the development could be screened with hedging, however to my mind any such planting would need to be of a height, extent and density that of itself would look unusual or out of place within the context of this pleasant residential street.
On this basis I am drawn to conclude that the scheme would result in harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It would be inconsistent with the advice in the National Planning Policy Framework, which states that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development,
Section 06
Conclusion
Having regard to all matters raised and based on my reasoning above, 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
- 22 June 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 25 May 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3313137
- Application reference
- 22/01247
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Dover District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000108
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
- 36 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
- 14 December 2022
- Valid date
- 14 December 2022
- Start date
- 1 February 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 18 November 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 22 June 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
- 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
- 34436
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:27
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21