Appeal 3271952
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
4 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 detached garage.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed detached garage on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
[address] in the vicinity of the appeal site between [address] and [address] is characterised by mature, predominantly detached dwellings of varying design set back from the grass verge lined road. With front boundary treatments typically consisting of hedges and with modest trees and bushes regularly present within the front gardens of properties dwellings along the road are verdantly set. As a result, the road has a pleasant suburban character and appearance with built development counterbalanced by landscaping.
It is a feature of this section of the road that extensions do not extend much beyond the front building line. Similarly, there are no detached garages located in front of the dwellings. As a result, the front elevations of houses are not obscured by built development and visually contribute to the street scene. The front extension at No 254 is an exception to this. However, as an isolated example it does not change the character and appearance of this part of the road to the extent that significant built development forward of the front elevations of houses would fit in.
Facing the front of the house on [address], the proposed detached 6 metre by 5.4 metre garage would be located in the front right hand corner of the front garden. Extending across approximately a third of the front elevation of the house, and rising above the height of the front boundary hedge, it would dominate the house and obscure views of the dwelling to the detriment of the character and appearance of the property and this section of [address]. Although the garage would be constructed from materials that match the house this would not compensate for the significant adverse effect described.
Instances of other garages and extensions that have been built forward of the front building line in other areas of [address] have been referred to. However, having viewed this long road it is evident that they are few in number as demonstrated by the photograph of only one example provided in support of the appeal. As a result, the existence of such development does not alter my findings in relation to the main issue.
Taking all these matters into account, I therefore conclude that the siting, scale and height of the proposed garage would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area. As a result, it would be contrary to policy D1 of the Melton Local Plan which requires the protection of the character and appearance of a locality through high quality design that respects local design features. The appeal should therefore 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 1091No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 1 July 2021Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 28 June 2021 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3271952
- Application reference
- 20/01332/FULHH
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Melton Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000133
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
- 33 m²
- Number of residences
- 0
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- No
- 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
- 26 March 2021
- Valid date
- 26 March 2021
- Start date
- 28 April 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 8 February 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 1 July 2021
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
- 75
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:25
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21