Appeal 3360213
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 ground floor front extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character of the surrounding area.
Section 04
Reasons
The property is a semi-detached bungalow with accommodation in the roof space. There is a front dormer, which is also seen at the attached bungalow. The attached property has been extended to the front. A detached garage stands to the side of the appeal property, set back into the plot.
The submitted drawings show a ground floor front extension that broadly mirrors the extension seen at the attached property. The Council do not see any objection that element of the works, and I agree the scale and design would reflect the neighbouring property.
A first floor side extension is also shown, which would continue the existing ridge line and roof plane of the property, and extend the existing dormer onto this extension. This side extension would not be constructed over an existing or proposed ground floor: it is shown as supported by four columns. Three of these would be on the existing driveway to the property, whilst the fourth is shown as through the existing garage; that garage is shown in the proposed drawings as being retained.
The overall design approach of the side extension would appear at odds with the pattern of housing design in the immediate area. [name] saw there are examples of side extensions in the wider area, including with first floor side extensions which are not set down from the ridge line or front roof plane, these are associated with a more balanced and considered ground floor design treatment: either atop a ground floor or, where there is an open area, such space has a more considered approach to the form and scale of the main building. The design in the current scheme – with a pillar through a retained garage building and pillars within the driveway – would, when combined with the scale and design of the proposed extension, appear as an incongruous addition. The overall appearance of the extension would thus not relate well to the host property or to the character of the wider area.
Policy CS19 of the Gravesham Local Plan Core Strategy 2015 seeks to ensure development proposals conserve and enhance the local environment, and the Council’s Householder Extensions/Alterations Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 2021 similarly requires all alterations to be well-designed and sympathetic to their surroundings. The National Planning Policy Framework requires development to be visually attractive as a result of good architecture, and sympathetic to local character. The proposals would not be consistent with these policies and so I conclude there would be harm to the character of the area.
Section 05
Conclusion
For the reasons given the proposed development would conflict with the policies of the development plan and the Framework, and 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 97No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 17 April 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 1 April 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3360213
- Application reference
- 20241021
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Gravesham Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000109
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 February 2025
- Valid date
- 6 February 2025
- Start date
- 13 February 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 16 December 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 17 April 2025
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
- No
- 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
- 68253
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:28
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21