Appeal 3290326
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 a carport.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Procedural Matter
The proposed carport had been erected at the time of my site visit along with a fence adjacent to its western elevation along the road frontage. I note that the Council within their decision notice referred to the description as being the ‘retention’ of carport and fence and whilst ‘retention’ does not in itself constitute operational development, nonetheless I have had regard to this and have determined the appeal on this basis.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the appeal proposal upon the character and appearance of the area.
Section 05
Reasons
The proposal comprises a timber carport structure currently housing a touring caravan which projects beyond its southern elevation. It is quite crude in its form of construction and its intrusiveness in the road is accentuated by the structure’s height and position adjacent to the footway.
There are a number of detached garage buildings in similar locations; although these tend to have rendered walls and a gable pitched roofs. There is also a range of front boundary treatments within the road, although these are often lower and in many cases constitute some form of masonry construction.
I acknowledge that the appellant originally considered the proposal to be Permitted Development, but nonetheless it falls upon me to determine the scheme on its merits. The examples cited at 30 and [address] are noted, however ultimately each case must be assessed on its own merits.
I find that the proposal appears incongruous in the street scene and conflicts with Policies S2 and WE8 of the Teignbridge Local Plan 2013 – 2033 (adopted 6th May 2014) which together require development to be of a high quality design to integrate with, and where possible, enhance the character of the adjoining built environment, whilst ensuring that design and materials do not have a dominant impact on the street scene.
Section 06
Conclusion
Having regard to the above and all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal 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 297No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 31 March 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 15 March 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3290326
- Application reference
- 21/01955/HOU
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Teignbridge District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000045
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
- 14 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
- 7 January 2022
- Valid date
- 12 January 2022
- Start date
- 28 January 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 29 November 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 31 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
- 13292
- 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