Appeal 3341911
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]
Since the determination of the planning application the Council have adopted The Dartford Plan April 2024 (DP), whose policies supersede the Dartford Development Policies Plan 2017 referenced within the Decision Notice. I have therefore determined the appeal with the newly adopted policies in mind.
Section 04
[name]
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal site comprises a two-storey, mid-terrace property in a modern residential neighbourhood. The rear elevation of the unit faces out onto a large communal parking area.
The proposed dormer window would be relatively large, with a flat roof and Juliet balcony. As there are no other dormer elements evident from the communal parking area, in my view care needs to be taken introducing such features into this part of the estate.
With this in mind, I consider that the overall size and centralised positioning of the scheme within the roof slope would appear dominant and be harmful to the character of the dwelling and locality. In particular, the misalignment of the fenestration with the openings below, and the large expanse of glazing at roof level that would be significantly larger than elsewhere on the property, would result in a discordant and top-heavy appearance. _________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________
The appellant has drawn my attention to a scheme approved by the Council at [address], under reference DA/22/01411/FUL. However, this includes smaller dormer windows that better align with the openings and projecting front bay features below; it is not therefore comparable to the appeal scheme before me.
I appreciate that the appeal site is neither located within a Conservation Area nor is it a listed building or heritage asset, and the proposal would be constructed using complementary materials. It would also allow the property to be extended in order to increase residential living space for the occupants without compromising on the amenity space of the dwelling or impacting negatively upon the amenity of neighbouring resident. Nevertheless, these factors would not outweigh the harm I have identified above.
I also acknowledge that the rear dormer would not be seen by the wider public, still this does not obviate the obligation to ensure that it would be well-designed and is not so large that it dominates the building.
The proposal would materially harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. It would run contrary to Policies M1 and M10 of the DP, which seek to secure new development of acceptable scale and appearance.
Section 06
Conclusion
In respect of the above and all other issues, the appeal fails.
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
- 5 September 2024Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 13 June 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3341911
- Application reference
- DA/23/01292/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
- 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
- 3 April 2024
- Valid date
- 3 April 2024
- Start date
- 19 April 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 5 March 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 5 September 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
- 56644
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:28
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21