Appeal 3279155
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 is the effect on the character and appearance of the street scene of [address].
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property is a two-storey detached house on the north side of [address]. The proposal is for the erection of a detached double garage to the front of the dwelling but offset to the southeast corner of the front garden where it would be positioned close to the boundaries with No. 44 and the roadside footpath. I have assessed the proposal taking account of the proposed re-siting of the access further to the west that forms part of an existing permission.
The Council’s objection is that in this forward position the scale and massing of the proposed garage would have a detrimental effect on the street scene. For the appellant it is argued that the proposed building would sit behind the projected building line from No. 48 and the bend in the road would minimise the visual impact. Furthermore, the design of the roof in conjunction with the substantial boundary hedges would significantly reduce any impact and there are other examples of forwardly positioned garages in the locality.
I have carefully considered these points. However, I saw on my visit that whilst Nos. 48 & 48a on the western flank of the site have a minimal building line to [address], in contrast No. [address] of dwellings to the east are set back a reasonable distance from their front boundaries. The application site plan shows that the garage would be forward of the nearest front corner of No. 44 and almost entirely frontward of the host dwelling. This siting would be noticeably at odds with the frontages of the dwellings to the east, where there is an absence of built form.
I acknowledge that the screening effect of the appeal dwelling’s boundary hedge and the mature trees at the front of No. 44 would mitigate the visual impact, albeit there is some disagreement between the Council and the appellant as to whether the roof line of the garage would be visible over the top of the hedge.
However, the important point is that neither the hedge nor the trees can be relied on as a permanent screen as they could be removed or indeed die at some time in the future. In either of those circumstances the garage would draw the eye as being particularly prominent and visually intrusive, albeit that even under present conditions it could be perceived as incongruous in views through the existing or relocated entrance or possibly over the hedge.
For the above reasons I conclude that the proposed garage would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the street scene of [address]. This would be in conflict with Policy CS21 of the [name] 2012; the Council’s Design SPD 2015, and Section 12: ‘[name] of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021.
The appeal is therefore 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 204No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 24 November 2021Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 2 November 2021 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3279155
- Application reference
- PLAN/2021/0042
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Woking Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000217
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
- 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
- 16 July 2021
- Valid date
- 16 July 2021
- Start date
- 25 September 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 30 April 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 24 November 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
- 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
- 6535
- 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