Appeal 3291289
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
the erection of a detached garage building.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposal on the streetscene.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property is a two-storey semi-detached house which forms part of a cluster of houses, arranged in 5 semi-detached pairs. Within this cluster, the dwellings have very long front gardens that range in depth from approximately 17m to 25m, and are generally open in character with the front boundaries marked by low hedges and fences. The depth of the appeal garden from its front elevation of the house to the boundary with the highway measures 24.8m. [name]. 1 to 4 the are 2 pairs of semi-detached dwellings set on shallow plots, close to the highway boundary, but their presence does not affect the issue in this case, and this proposal has to be seen primarily in the context of the 5 pairs of semi-detached houses just described. They have retained a uniform character in spite of side additions that have been made to a number of them. The proposed garage would be very much at odds with the open front gardens which are so much a feature.
At my site visit I noted that along the boundary between No.8 and the appeal property there is a substantial hedge, about 2m or so high, in close proximity to the site of the proposed garage. I also noted that this hedge appears to be within the curtilage of No.8, and so is not in control of the appellants. This hedge would, to a large extent, reduce the impact of the garage from views across the gardens to the north-west, save for the roof. I see from submitted photographs that the hedge has been cut to a much lower height in the past; no advantage could be gained from its presence, since it’s height could not be controlled by a condition as it is outside the appellants’ control.
Section 05
Conclusions
I am led to the conclusion that the impact of the proposed garage would be harmful to the streetscene to an unacceptable extent, and that this outweighs the private benefit that the garage would bring to the appellants. For that reason I will dismiss the appeal.
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 129No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 27 June 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 27 May 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3291289
- Application reference
- DC/20/2751/FUL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- East Suffolk
- Planning authority code
- E07000244
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
- 21 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
- 24 January 2022
- Valid date
- 24 January 2022
- Start date
- 4 February 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 22 November 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 27 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
- 16954
- 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