Appeal 3286297
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
described as ‘Building of a detached garage’.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property is a detached house in a residential area. Houses within the street are also detached with front gardens behind the pavement. Generally, gardens comprise a lawn next to a driveway with no, or low, boundary walls. Most properties have garages attached to the side, as is the case with the appeal property, or incorporated into the house design with first floor rooms above. Generally, garages share the house building line or are set back behind it. As a result, the street has an open character with views across most front gardens.
The appeal property is on a corner where the road swings round and forms a small cul de sac of five houses. These properties differ from most in the road in that they have mature hedge boundaries between the houses, some of which extend around the front of the gardens to the pavement edge, as is the case with the appeal property. Consequently, the frontages of these properties are less open to views from the street as elsewhere within [address]. Nonetheless, it is obvious that none of these properties, or others within the street, have substantial buildings in their front gardens. Also, within the cul de sac the appeal site front garden is visible, as is the driveway which at the time of my visit had 2 cars parked and potentially room for a third.
The proposal is for a relatively large garage with an approximately 6m high half hipped roof. It would be located in the front garden behind the existing hedge, forward, and to the side, of the house. The roof would be seen above the hedge and the close board fence which extend along the side boundary adjacent to the pavement. It would also be clearly visible from within the cul de sac and seen as separate from the main house. As such it would appear as an incongruous addition to the front garden of the property and at odds with the prevailing character of the area, which is free of large buildings within front gardens. The proposal would therefore conflict with sections 12.1 and 12.4 of the Householder Planning and Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2020) which require garages to be set behind the front building line of dwellings to avoid harm to the street scene, and Policies DM35 and DM36 of the Wycombe District Local Plan (2019) which require development to respect and improve the character and appearance of the area.
Section 05
Conclusion
I have considered all other matters raised in support of the appeal, including the processing of the planning application and the absence of public representations. However, for the reasons above I conclude that the appeal should 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 128No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 8 April 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 21 March 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3286297
- Application reference
- 21/06967/FUL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Buckinghamshire Council - Wycombe Area *
- Planning authority code
- E07000007
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
- 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
- 5 November 2021
- Valid date
- 5 November 2021
- Start date
- 12 January 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 22 September 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 8 April 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
- 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
- 13714
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:26
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21