Appeal 3296619
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
erection of 1 no detached double garage with associated access.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site is a small plot of land currently free from built development located opposite a newly built residential detached dormer bungalow with double garage. A narrow country lane separates the 2 pieces of land.
The area has a rural character due to surrounding fields with properties interspersed along the lane. Some of the properties have garages or outbuildings on the opposite side of the road. However, they are not of the scale and massing of the proposed development, particularly when considered in the context of the scale and massing of the dormer bungalow.
At some 12 metres long and 5 metres wide the scale and massing of the garage would create a cumbersome development close to the road which would be incompatible with the wider rural, largely undeveloped setting. The proposed garage may be smaller than the building that previously occupied the site but the site and its immediate surroundings has notably changed following the erection of the dwelling and double garage opposite the site.
The appellant has identified that the garage is required for additional storage which is not available in the garage that has been built adjacent to the dwelling. However, this and any need for additional car parking does not outweigh the harm that there would be to the character and appearance of the area.
The scheme would harm the character and appearance of the area and therefore would conflict with Policies CP3 and BE1 of the Lichfield Local Plan Strategy which amongst other things requires new development to protect and enhance character and distinctiveness of the surrounding area and be of a size and scale that is appropriate to the locality. It would also conflict with the part of Policy D1 of the Whittington and Fisherwick Neighbourhood Plan which supports development where it takes into account the setting and character of the area.
For the reasons identified, I conclude that 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 3546No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 1 June 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 22 May 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3296619
- Application reference
- 21/01406/FUL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Lichfield District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000194
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
- 1 hectares
- Floor space
- 68 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
- 9 April 2022
- Valid date
- 9 April 2022
- Start date
- 12 May 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 9 March 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 1 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
- 16002
- 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