Appeal 3280041
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
6 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 resubmission of a domestic garage to side of existing dwelling under HPK/2019/0408.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
At my site visit I could see that the appeal site is a small area of irregular shaped land located at the end of a row of semi-detached houses and adjacent to no.77 (as identified on the appeal location plan) which is a detached property. Properties in the immediate vicinity generally have noticeable amounts of separation spacing, with garden and other greenery viewable from the road. There are a variety of types and styles of housing close to and visible from the appeal site.
I appreciate that the position and footprint of the proposed garage has been designed to be in line with the irregular shape of the site and located towards its rear boundary. But the presence of the garage would not respect the amount of separation spacing evident between other existing nearby properties, including no.77 and the pocket of dwellings situated along [address] also visible. In the context of nearby dwellings, as well as the existing detached garage belonging to no.73 the change would appear incongruous.
The proposed garage would be situated too close to other residential boundaries where there are deliberate visual gaps between dwellings and associated domestic buildings, prominent along [address]. The degree of separation spacing between properties surrounding the appeal site, and indeed that provided by the site, is a noticeable characteristic of the immediate area. The position, size and mass of the garage would be a prominent and conspicuous change from public viewpoints along the highway. The resultant effect of filling up the gap with the garage would be detrimental to the appearance of the local street scene.
Overall, I find that the development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. The proposal conflicts with Policies S1, EQ6, and S7 of the High Peak Local Plan as well as the guidance contained within the [name] (2018) which collectively seek that new development respects the appearance of the locality. It would also conflict with the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework which encourages good design.
Section 05
Other Matters
I acknowledge that the appellant has sought to address the reasons for refusal applied in a previous attempt to secure planning permission with a modified design. Nevertheless, the appeal proposal before me would still harm the character and appearance of the area. There is no strong reason for me to support a different outcome.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the reasons given above the appeal does not succeed.
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 1926No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 25 October 2021Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 14 October 2021 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3280041
- Application reference
- HPK/2021/0141
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- High Peak Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000037
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
- 36 m²
- 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
- 31 July 2021
- Valid date
- 9 August 2021
- Start date
- 27 September 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 11 May 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 25 October 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
- 5083
- 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