Skip to main content
Official casework recordAllowedCurrent release

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 works

One-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.

  1. 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

  2. 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.

  3. Section 04

    Main issue

    The main issue in this appeal is the effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and locality.

  4. 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