Skip to main content
Official casework recordAllowedCurrent release

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 works

One-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.

  1. 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.

  2. Section 03

    Main Issue

    The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the area.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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