Appeal 3365682
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
for a first floor front extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the dwelling and surrounds.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site consists of a two-storey detached house, prominently located on [address] opposite the junction with [address]. The street scene is characterised by buildings of varying design, external materials and detailing in a wider residential estate. A number of local dwellings have large, single storey, double garages that project fairly substantially from the front elevations of the host property.
The proposal would extend over the entirety of the ground floor garage element, with its ridgeline at a height that would broadly match that of the main house. As a result it would lack any sense of subservience, appearing as a dominant element of significant mass and bulk in a conspicuous position within the context of the neighbourhood.
The imposing nature of the scheme would be exacerbated by the design of the front elevation, which is bland and utilitarian with small first floor windows, large areas of brickwork and no features of interest to articulate the facade.
I observed the scale and appearance of other properties in the estate, including those highlighted by the appellant. However, many of these are not directly comparable to the development before me, as the garages and accommodation over have a different relationship with the main building, or they do not project as far forward as the appeal scheme. They might also contain features to reduce bulk such as hipped roofs, or bay windows to provide interest. In any event, the design of other houses elsewhere would be a neutral consideration in the balance against planning harm, and I am mindful that each case must be assessed on its own merits.
I sympathise with the appellants' personal circumstances and appreciate that the accommodation would provide further living space. Moreover, that no objections have been raised by local residents or the Parish Council. Nevertheless, the development remains unacceptable for the reasons outlined above. _________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________
I therefore conclude that the scheme would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the dwelling and surrounds. It would contravene Policies CP4, DM14, DM16 and DM33 of [name] 2031: The Swale Borough Local Plan July 2017, which cumulatively require new development to be designed to a high quality and respond to the distinctive local character of the area in which it is situated.
Section 05
Conclusion
With respect to the above and all associated factors, 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
- 19 November 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 30 October 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3365682
- Application reference
- 25/500235/FULL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Swale Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000113
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
- 5 m²
- Number of residences
- 0
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- No
- Affects setting of a listed building
- No
- 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
- 14 May 2025
- Valid date
- 4 June 2025
- Start date
- 4 June 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 9 April 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 19 November 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
- 79945
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:29
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21