Dartford Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in Dartford?
Learn what the selected examples found harmful, or not harmful, to Dartford’s character and appearance.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 62 of 89
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 16
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 45
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 57
- of 62 matched records
AI-assisted. Cited sources and wording were checked before publication. Based on 5 source-linked examples shown below. Review method and limits.
Planning Data area point: Dartford LPA (51.429859, 0.247608). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Dartford Borough Council appeal findings
Dartford character and appearance findings on property alterations
Most selected extracts give only conclusions, so they do not show the design detail behind the Inspector’s findings.
Counted against appeals
Gates, roof changes and extensions found harmful
Gates and railings harmed the area
The Inspector concluded that the metal railings and automatic entrance gates harmed the area’s character and appearance.
Mansard changes harmed property and area
The Inspector concluded that the extension, mansard roof and façade alterations harmed the host property and surrounding area.
Side extension harmed property and area
The Inspector concluded that the ground-floor side extension harmed the host property and area’s character and appearance.
Helped or needed
Garage and dormer designs found not harmful
Garage scale and siting
For the detached garage, the extract says height, mass, scale and siting should relate to neighbouring buildings and the wider locality; the Inspector found no harm.
Dormer conclusion lacks design detail
The Inspector found no harm from the rear dormer and roof windows, but the extract does not identify the design features behind that conclusion.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify a problem with height, mass, scale or siting?
- Is the alleged harm to your home, the surrounding area, or both?
- Does the notice explain why the named feature harms local character?
The selected Dartford extracts cover different alterations and mostly omit the detailed assessment behind the conclusion. These decisions do not predict another result.
Appeal evidence examples
Compare allowed and dismissed appeal reasoning
Each example separates the development, the Inspector-stated issue that selected it, and the reasoning from the decision. Compare the facts as well as the outcome: these examples do not predict how a different proposal would be decided.
Allowed appeal examples
2 examples
6 April 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a single story detached garage.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposed garage would not harm the character and appearance of the area and would accord with Policies DP2 and DP7 of the Dartford Development Policies Plan (2017). These require, amongst other things, development to comprise good design which responds to and retains local character, with consideration given to how the height, mass, scale and siting of proposals relate to neighbouring buildings and the wider locality.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
12 May 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
conversion of loft into habitable space including a rear dormer to the rear roof slope and two roof windows to the front.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this appeal is the effects of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the appeal property and area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons, the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the appeal property or area. The proposal would therefore comply with Policies DP2 and DP7 of the Dartford Development Policies Plan 2017 which require development proposals to be of suitable design, not visually obtrusive and well-related to neighbouring dwellings and the wider locality. Whilst also relevant to matters of character and appearance, draft Policies M1 and M11 contained within the Pre-Submission (Publication) Dartford Local Plan do not significantly change the approach of Policies DP2 and DP7. Therefore, the emerging Local Plan does not indicate a different conclusion should be reached.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
14 December 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
metal railings and automatic entrance gates to driveway.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that the development harms the character and appearance of the area. The scheme therefore conflicts with Policies DP2 and DP7 of the Dartford Development Policies Plan 2017 and emerging policies M1 and M11 of the [name] (Publication) Dartford Local Plan, which collectively requires development to respond to, reinforce and enhance positive aspects of the locality.
Paragraph 6 · Source pages 1, 2
7 February 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the erection of a single storey rear extension, new mansard roof, with 3no front mansard windows, 3no rear mansard windows, façade/internal alterations.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue raised by this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. The proposal would, therefore conflict with Policies DP2 and DP7 of the Dartford Development Policies Plan 2017 and Policies M1 and M11 of the emerging Dartford Local Plan. These policies seek, amongst other matters, development to be of a high quality design that responds to, reinforces and enhances the positive aspects of a locality.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
13 December 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
ground floor side extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue raised by this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host property and the area. The proposal would, therefore, conflict with Policies DP2 and DP7 of the Dartford Development Policies Plan 2017 and Policies M1 and M11 of the Pre-submission (Publication) Dartford Local Plan 2021. These policies seek, amongst other matters, development to be of good design and retain or enhance the character of residential areas.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2