Appeal 3295886
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
4 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
described as “a wooden car port frame (4 legs & roof and a clear roof) over my driveway situated at the front of my property (H 7.5ft W 10ft L 13.75ft). The main purpose of the structure is to keep guano from damaging cars parked on driveway - previous vehicles have been damaged causing extensive repair costs.”
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the car port on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
The car port is already in situ and projects well in front of the strong linear building line formed by the front elevations of the host garage and neighbouring houses, stopping just short of the pavement edge. It is highly visible along the street, and from the public footpath that runs through the open space immediately opposite. There are no similar car ports, or other projecting structures of this extent at the front of the properties within the street. Thus, notwithstanding its open timber post construction, the car port has a pronounced and entirely unsatisfactory effect upon the [address] street scene, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area.
The proposal therefore conflicts with Policy SD4 of the Redcar and Cleveland Local Plan (2018), which among other things, requires development proposals to respect or enhance the character of the site and its surroundings.
I have taken into account that the car port offers protection from the effects of tree sap and bird droppings on the appellant’s car. I also note that the site is not within a conservation area; has not resulted in the loss of garden and parking space at the property; and has not caused harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.
However, I have reached the conclusion that none of these are sufficient to outweigh the harm I have described and the resultant conflict with the development plan as a whole. Accordingly, I 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 597No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 18 May 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 17 May 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3295886
- Application reference
- R/2021/0671/RT
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E06000003
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
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 29 March 2022
- Valid date
- 30 March 2022
- Start date
- 5 April 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 7 January 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 18 May 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
- 15382
- 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