Appeal 3297876
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 1200mm by 2400mm timber shed.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Preliminary matter
The appeal application was retrospective as the shed was already in place when the application was made.
Section 04
Main issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of [name].
Section 05
Reasons
[name] is a new cul-de-sac development of 2 storey terraced houses, grouped around a parking courtyard and set back from the street behind other development. No [address] house at the edge of the development. A feather edged boarding and felt roofed shed has been constructed in its front garden.
The small shed is only visible from within the courtyard and is fairly discreetly sited next to a timber boundary fence. Nevertheless, it is a low quality structure which intrudes on this new space, detracting from its spaciousness and appearance. It is a functional outbuilding more suitable to a back garden location and no reason has been given for its front garden location. I have not been provided with a landscaping plan for the courtyard, but the shed does occupy an area which could potentially be used for planting to help soften views of the fence and give the courtyard a greener appearance.
I conclude that the shed unacceptably harms the character and appearance of [name]. It therefore conflicts with the aims of Policy CP57 of the [name], Objective 22 of the Council’s design guidance [name] and the National Planning Policy Framework, to secure a high standard of design in all developments, including in terms of building materials, finishes and landscaping.
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
- 21 September 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 22 August 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3297876
- Application reference
- PL/2021/07826
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Wiltshire Council
- Planning authority code
- E06000054
Casework details
The casework, procedure, development and linking details supplied by the official record.
- Casework type
- Householder (HAS)
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development type
- Other minor 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
- 0.5 hectares
- Floor space
- 4 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 April 2022
- Valid date
- 29 April 2022
- Start date
- 20 June 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 7 February 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 21 September 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
- 20818
- 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