Appeal 3368447
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 the erection of a rear single storey extension, insertion of ground floor window to side elevation, render to all elevations, rear dormer window and roof light to front to facilitate a loft conversion.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the impact on the character and appearance of the dwelling and locality.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site relates to a two-storey, end-terrace dwelling with off-street parking on a driveway to the side. It is located in a street scene of other domestic properties of broadly similar scale and design.
The development would be evident from the public domain along [address] and the rear amenity spaces of other properties in the vicinity. The plans show that the mass and bulk of the dormer would entirely fill the rear roofslope of the house, with the flat roof continuing the ridge line and no gaps or spacing above the eaves or to either flank wall.
Given its size and relationship with the host building, the addition lacks any sense of subservience. The imposing appearance of the extension results in dominant and boxy roof form, which is in contrast to the existing dwelling, and competes with its general scale. This would be exacerbated by the use of cladding to the external surfaces, which would contrast with those used elsewhere on no.31. Overall, the development represents an obtrusive addition to the detriment of the character of the residence and the locality.
At my visit I was able to observe the rear dormer that has been constructed at [address], as highlighted by the appellant. This feature is considerably smaller than the scheme before me, with roof tiles evident above the eaves and to either side, and is not therefore directly comparable. __________________________________________________________________________________________
I appreciate that there would be no detriment upon the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring properties; the scheme would provide and increase in space and a better internal environment for the appellant and her family; the front elevation, use of external insulation and placement of refuse bins will remain tidy and coherent; there are no concerns from the Council in respect of the ground floor rear extension; and no objections have been received from third parties. However, these matters do not counterbalance the harm I have identified above.
[name] can understand the applicant’s perceived frustration with the outcome of the application, it is not my role to offer advice as to how to proceed henceforth.
I therefore conclude that the scheme would be injurious to the character and appearance of the dwelling and locality. It would fail Policies PM1 and H6 of the Dover District Local Plan October 2024, which require new development to be designed to a high quality and respect to the distinctive local character of the area in which it is situated. It would also be inconsistent with the Framework, which states that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development.
Section 05
Conclusion
Having regard to the above and all other 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
- 4 September 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 28 August 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3368447
- Application reference
- 25/00309
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Dover District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000108
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
- 1
- 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
- 30 June 2025
- Valid date
- 21 July 2025
- Start date
- 6 August 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 24 June 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 4 September 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
- 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
- 75793
- 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