Appeal 3296271
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
a detached garage.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of [address].
Section 04
Reasons
[address] is a residential cul-de-sac which turns through 90 degrees halfway down, with the frontage of No 10 on the outside of the bend and forming a focal point in views along the street. The proposal is to build a flat roofed double garage in a tapering section of the front garden, next to the street and behind an existing evergreen hedge.
The garage would replace a set of timber gates, a couple of small sheds and external storage. I have not seen any planning history showing that the sheds or the gates have been approved. The Council’s Residential Extensions and Householder Development Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) advises that care needs to be taken in the siting of garages, particularly in areas characterised by open frontages.
The garage would be of a simple, functional design which would be more appropriate in a less visible location. There are some other flat roofed garages nearby, but these are generally set well back from the street. The frontages here are generally open in character and I saw no similarly sited garages on [address] or in the immediate vicinity.
The hedge as existing could potentially screen much of the garage to help minimise its visual impact. The garage would, however, intrude to some extent onto the hedge and its rooting area so that the hedge could be threatened by the proposed work. In any case, although the hedge’s retention could possibly be secured in the short term by a planning condition, it could potentially become diseased, die or be removed in the longer term. The existence of landscape features like this is not normally sufficient reason to justify poorly sited or designed development. Without the hedge to hide it, the garage would be a low quality feature for such a prominent location.
I conclude that the proposed garage would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of [address]. It therefore conflicts with the aims of Policies GC1, H13 (ii) and H20 of the Chiltern District Local Plan (as altered and consolidated), Policy CS20 of the [name] for Chiltern District and the SPD, to ensure that new development including garages is of a high standard of design that would not adversely affect the street scene.
For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should not succeed.
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 890No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 28 June 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 1 June 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3296271
- Application reference
- PL/22/0081/FA
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Buckinghamshire Council - Chiltern Area *
- Planning authority code
- E07000005
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
- 23 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
- 4 April 2022
- Valid date
- 4 April 2022
- Start date
- 13 April 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 4 March 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 28 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
- 17038
- 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