Appeal 3336514
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
a first floor side extension and a single storey rear extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a first floor side extension and a single storey rear extension at [site address] , Greenhithe [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/23/00997/FUL, dated 21 August 2023, subject to the following
Section 03
conditions:
The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: EW:65:JAWS:1, EW:65:JAWS:2, EW:65:JAWS:3, EW:65:JAWS:4, EW:65:JAWS:5, EW:65:JAWS:6, EW:65:JAWS:7 and EW:65:JAWS:8.
The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling.
Section 04
Main issue
The main issue in this appeal is the effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and locality.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal concerns a two storey end of terrace dwelling. Development in the vicinity is characterised by two and three storey terraced properties, with variation in ridge heights being a common feature. However, there are also nearby examples of fairly lengthy ridge lines spanning a number of dwellings at the same height without a step down.
Nevertheless, the proposed extension at first floor level above the garage to the side of the host dwelling would have its ridge below that of the main part. While the extent of the set down proposed is fairly modest, it would reflect others of a similarly limited extent in the vicinity. The extension would have a relatively narrow width across the front by comparison to that of the two storey part of the existing property. As a result of the lower ridge and its size, this addition would be subservient to the host dwelling.
Garages nearby are found in a variety of situations. These include a double garage at the end of a terrace and a single garage that is between two and three storey properties adjoining to the sides. There are also examples of integral garages with one and two floors above. The additional floor above the garage would be consistent with this pattern of development and not be an unusual feature.
Due to these factors, the extension would not be prominent or obtrusive, with the visual interest found in the streetscene being maintained rather than diminished. For the above reasons, it is concluded that there would be no harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and locality.
As a result, the proposal would comply with Policies DP2 and DP7 of the Dartford Development Policies Plan 2017 and Policies M1 and M11 of the emerging Dartford Local Plan. As well as other things, these policies intend that development should be of a good design that responds to, reinforces and enhances the positive aspects of a locality and is not visually obtrusive.
The Council refers to the supporting text to Policy DP7, where it is indicated that two storey side extensions should be set back at least 0.45m from the existing building at the front. In this instance the dimension would be 0.4m. However, this is not part of the policy itself and its purpose of achieving subservience would be met anyway. Such a fairly minimal shortfall would not justify rejecting the proposal given the above considerations and absence of any detrimental effect.
Matters such as the position of the upper floor addition and its distance from them would prevent any adverse effect in respect of light levels or privacy at neighbouring properties. The fairly modest height of the single storey rear extension would prevent any detrimental impact from this part. The generalised concern raised by a neighbour regarding the structural effect of the foundations of the ground floor extension at an adjoining dwelling would not justify rejection of the appeal.
Taking account of all other matters raised, given the absence of any harm it is determined that the appeal succeeds. A condition specifying the approved plans is necessary to provide certainty. The facing materials used should match those of the existing dwelling in order to protect its appearance.
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 8No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 28 February 2024Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 14 February 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3336514
- Application reference
- 23/00997/FUL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Dartford Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000107
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
- 24 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
- Allowed
- Decision category
- Allowed
- Received date
- 8 January 2024
- Valid date
- 8 January 2024
- Start date
- 26 January 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 25 October 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 28 February 2024
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
- 47316
- 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