Appeal 3290565
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
No verified development description has been extracted from an official decision PDF yet.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the development having regard to the character and appearance of the dwelling and surrounding area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site comprises a two-storey, detached house with off-street parking on the driveway to the front. The local neighbourhood is mainly residential in nature with an area of parkland on the opposite side of [address].
The appeal dwelling is set in a row of other houses that display a degree of uniformity in terms of the front building line of properties and their relationship to the road. The driveways and front elevations to each building are broadly visible from the public domain, which adds to the spacious context in which the appeal property is viewed.
The proposed car port would be sited forward of the host property and would be clearly evident from the public domain. The scheme would erode the spacious character of the locale due to its size and siting forward of the established building line on [address]. The impact would be harmful to the relationship between residences and adjoining spaces, and thus the character and appearance of the area in what is a prominent location.
I note the appellant's intention to partially sink the car port into the ground. However, the effect of this would be offset as the element would remain visible when approached from the north, due to the rise in the road in this direction. I am also aware that the development could be screened with hedging, however any such planting would need to be of a height, extent and density that of itself would look unusual or out of place within the context of this pleasant residential street. _________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________
I appreciate that there are other instances of detached garages in the front gardens of dwellings in the local area, and that [address] has a projecting single storey garage feature. However, development at other houses would be neutral considerations in any balance against planning harm, and I am mindful that each case must be assessed on its own merits.
I acknowledge those other matters that have been advanced in support of the development, including the use of a green roof and complementary materials, and that there have been no objections from local residents. However, these matters do not outweigh the harm I have identified above.
I conclude that the scheme would result in harm to the character and appearance of the dwelling and the surrounding area. It would be contrary to Policy 59.BE of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011), which seeks to secure new development of acceptable scale and appearance.
Section 05
Conclusion
Having regard to all matters raised and based on my reasoning above, the appeal is 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 212No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 21 April 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 17 March 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3290565
- Application reference
- H/21/91377
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Eastleigh Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000086
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
- 24 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
- 12 January 2022
- Valid date
- 24 January 2022
- Start date
- 2 February 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 9 November 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 21 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
- 14153
- 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