Appeal 3277793
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 new vehicle access and garage.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Fishbourne Conservation Area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site is located on the southern side of the A259 ( [site address] ) within a semi-rural area. The architecture and scale of buildings in the locality varies considerably although many are set back from the road.
The proposed quadruple garage would be located within the front garden area of the host dwelling, itself a detached two storey house of relatively modest proportions. The proposed building would be of a greater length than the width of the dwelling that it would serve and combined with its height would compete visually with Estoril lacking subservience to it.
Whilst there has been some attention to detail of the design, the building would largely be functional in appearance and the use of uPVC windows, fascias, bargeboards and soffits would not be in keeping with the traditional materials generally employed, and indeed encouraged, within the Conservation Area.
I understand the reasoning behind the creation of the access, which in any case, is not in dispute, however the proposed garage by virtue of its overall scale and design in such a prominent location would appear incongruent within the street scene and would fail to preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
Therefore notwithstanding the fact that Estoril is not identified as being one of the positive buildings within the Conservation Area Character Appraisal (2018), nonetheless it would give rise to less than substantial harm to a designated heritage asset and no public benefits have been advanced that outweigh this harm.
I find the proposal conflicts with Policy 47 of the Chichester Local Plan: [name] 2014-2029 which stipulates that the Local Planning Authority will continue to conserve and enhance the historic environment through, amongst other things, new development which recognises, respects and enhances the local distinctiveness and character of the area and heritage assets, including Conservation Areas.
Section 05
Conclusion
Having regard to the above and all other matters raised by the appellant, I conclude that the appeal 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 297No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 14 January 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 23 November 2021 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3277793
- Application reference
- FB/21/00785/DOM
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Chichester District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000225
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
- 58 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
- Yes
- Flooding is an issue
- Not recorded
- Site within an AONB
- Yes
- 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
- 25 June 2021
- Valid date
- 25 June 2021
- Start date
- 26 August 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 7 May 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 14 January 2022
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
- 8881
- 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