Appeal 3345800
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 single storey front extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue raised by this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area.
Section 04
Reasons
There is a continuity to the street scene within this row of properties. All but one retain frontage bay windows at ground floor. This uniformity to both the character and appearance of the row gives a distinctiveness to the appearance of the properties. This retains a strong sense of place within this part of the street scene.
The proposed front extension would create a substantial feature at the front of the property that would be clearly visible within the street scene. Given its design and overall size it would be a visually out of keeping addition to the host dwelling and that of the wider street scene. Consequently, the proposed development would be an unsympathetic addition to the dwelling and would be a harmful development within this street scene.
I have been provided photographs of ground floor front extensions that have taken place at Nos. No.34 and [address]. I acknowledge that No.[address] hosts a similar extension to that proposed. That property forms part of the row of properties that I have identified a continuity to their bay windowed frontages. The planning permission at No.34 was granted some time ago at a time when a different development plan was in place. No. [address] also hosts a ground floor front extension. That property, however, is located further along the street where I saw there to be a different character and appearance to that locality. The proposed development can and should be considered on its own merits having regard to the current development plan and supplementary planning guidance (SPD) that is in place. The examples cited hold little weight in favour of the proposal.
For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. The proposal would, therefore conflict with Policies SP6 and HOU8 of the Ashford Local Plan 2019 and [name] 10 ‘[name] in Urban and [name] 2004. These policies and SPD seek, amongst other matters, development to achieve high quality design and not to result in significant harm to the overall character and appearance of the area, taking into account the surrounding built form and/or street scene.
The proposal would not harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers and would be acceptable in terms of highway safety. Whilst these are merits of the proposal, they do not outweigh the harm that I have identified above or justify the proposed development.
Section 05
Conclusion
Having regard to the above findings, 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 309No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 27 August 2024Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 19 August 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3345800
- Application reference
- PA/2024/0545
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Ashford Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000105
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
- Not recorded
- 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
- 6 June 2024
- Valid date
- 6 June 2024
- Start date
- 20 June 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 23 April 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 27 August 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
- 56188
- 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