Appeal 3289560
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 to front garden.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property is an extended detached dormer bungalow with a detached garage to the rear. It is situated at the end of [address], which is a residential cul-de-sac largely comprising a mix of detached dormer bungalows and two storey semi-detached dwellings.
Whilst most dwellings along [address] face directly towards the road, the appeal property is set at an angle, which to some degree, reflects its location at the corner of a hammerhead turning at the end of the cul-de-sac. As a consequence of this, its frontage to [address] appears narrower than and looks across, the frontages of neighbouring dwellings.
Dwellings along [address] are set well back from the road behind gardens and parking areas and have gardens to the rear. During my site visit, I observed that dwellings along [address] tend to have detached and occasionally semi-detached garages, set further away from the road than the host dwelling, mostly towards or within rear gardens.
The set back of dwellings from the road combines with the presence of front gardens, very low front boundary walls, planting and occasional hedgerows, to afford the area an attractive green and spacious character.
During my site visit, I observed that many dwellings have been extended or altered in some way and that such changes tend to appear in keeping with their surroundings.
The proposal would comprise a large, tall L-shaped double-garage. It would be positioned well forward of the front elevation of the host dwelling and is of such a scale and design that it would also wrap around part of the side of the house.
As such, the proposal would be sited in a prominent position and would partly obscure the front of the host dwelling. I find this, combined with the scale and siting of the proposal, would result in it appearing as an unduly dominant feature within the garden and parking area to the front of the dwelling. 10.The harmful effect of the above would be exacerbated as a result of the incongruous appearance of the proposal. As noted above, other garages along [address] are set back behind dwellings. As a large, tall ancillary building within a garden frontage close to the road, the proposed development would draw the eye as an alien feature and would detract from the identified attributes of its surroudings. 11.Taking the above into account, I find that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and to Local Plan1 Policy GD7, which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character.
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 601No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 16 March 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 24 February 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3289560
- Application reference
- 21/0731
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Fylde Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000119
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
- 40 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
- 21 December 2021
- Valid date
- 21 December 2021
- Start date
- 2 February 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 28 September 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 16 March 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
- 12399
- 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