Appeal 3290024
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
a garage.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a garage at Dorgor, [address], Shelwick [postcode] , dated 24 March 2021, subject to the following conditions:
The development hereby permitted shall begin no later than 3 years from the date of this decision.
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Site Location Plan Drawing Number 295.01; Block Plan Drawing Number 295.02; Ground Floor Plan Drawing Number 295.20 and [name] – [name] 295.21.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site comprises a detached bungalow located within the settlement of Shelwick. Individually designed properties sit comfortably within their plots which vary in terms of size and shape. At the time of the site visit I observed several properties with detached garages that sit forward of the main dwelling. I also observed that the host property was being refurbished and that part of the frontage has been cleared and lowered.
When viewed from the street the extent that dwellings are set back from the road varies. Furthermore, the existing frontages, boundary treatments and planting to the front of these properties provide a degree of variation in the appearance of the street.
The detached garage would sit forward of the front elevation of the property. However, it would be of a relatively small scale, of a sympathetic design and located in the corner of the plot surrounded on two sides by planting and a low stone wall partially screening it.
Whilst the detached garage would be visible when approaching from either direction it would be read as a subservient structure viewed against the backdrop of existing dwellings, boundary treatments and planting. For these reasons the proposed garage would not appear overly prominent or incongruous within the street scene.
The Council have made reference to the host property benefitting from an integral garage. However, the appellant advises that the garage will be converted into a habitable space in the form of a reception room. Based on my observations at the site visit it is apparent that this work is underway and that the property no longer includes an integral garage. I therefore give this aspect of the Council’s argument little weight.
I conclude the proposed development would not undermine the character and appearance of the area. Consequently, it would accord with Policies SD1 and LD1 of the Herefordshire Local Plan (2015) which, amongst other things, require new buildings to maintain local distinctiveness and proposals to be positively influenced by the character of the landscape and townscape.
It would accord with Policies HS4 and HS5 of the Holmer and Shelwick Neighbourhood Development Plan (2020) which, amongst other things, require developments to be of good quality design sensitively integrated into both the existing urban fabric and the surrounding rural landscape, and development proposals to demonstrate that the character of the local landscape has influenced the design, scale, form and siting of it.
It would also accord with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which, amongst other things, requires developments to add to the overall quality of the area and to be sympathetic to local character.
Section 05
Conditions
I have considered the imposition of conditions in accordance with the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance. In addition to the standard three-year time limit condition for implementation; I have imposed a condition specifying the relevant drawings as this provides certainty.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the reasons set out above the appeal succeeds.
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 180No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 17 June 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 7 June 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3290024
- Application reference
- 211242
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Herefordshire Council
- Planning authority code
- E06000019
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
- 42 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
- Allowed
- Decision category
- Allowed
- Received date
- 1 January 2022
- Valid date
- 1 January 2022
- Start date
- 23 March 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 4 December 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 17 June 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
- 16564
- 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