Skip to main content
Official casework recordAllowedCurrent release

Appeal 3300045

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 works

One-off service · No subscription

Similar appeals are evidence to inspect, not a prediction of your outcome.

Official decision document

The decision, section by section

6 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

timber clad carbarn within the forecourt of the property.

  1. Section 02

    Decision

    The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a timber clad carbarn within the forecourt of the property Roselands, [site address] , Surrey, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 22/00520/HHOLD, dated 6 March 2022, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

    The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

    The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be those specified within the application and there shall be no variation without the prior approval in writing of the local planning authority.

    The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans, drawings: MB 1087-0010 PL1, 0230 PL1, 0005 PL1, 0210 PL1 and 0220 PL1.

    No development shall commence until there shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority a scheme of landscaping to the reinforced planting zone indicated on the approved plans. The scheme shall include indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land, identify those to be retained. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the building or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner; and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority.

    No development, including all construction activities shall commence until all tree protection measures including tree protection fencing and ground protection shall be undertaken in strict accordance with the approved details contained in the Arboricultural Implications Assessment ref. J61.95 and Tree Protection Plan drg. No. J61.95/02 as prepared by Broad Oak Tree Consultants Limited. All arboricultural matters must then follow as described in these approved details.

  2. Section 03

    Main Issue

    I consider that the main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

  3. Section 04

    Reasons

    The property the subject of this appeal, [site address] , is a two-storey detached dwelling set in a large mature verdant plot. The area is characterised by similar properties in a silvan setting.

    The appellant proposes the erection of a modest detached timber clad carbarn with a mono-pitched roof. The barn would be located towards the south-west corner of the plot in front of the house and backing onto [address]. It is proposed to both retain the existing TPO tree and reinforce the existing planting around the building, thereby screening the barn from the public domain. Accordingly, if I were minded to allow the appeal, in accordance with the appellant’s proposal, I could condition the reinforcement of the existing planting.

    I appreciate that garages and car ports to the front of the properties are not a common feature in the road. Nevertheless, on balance, given the modest size and form of this proposal, the planned reinforcement of screen planting and as the parking of vehicles in the carport would make them less open to public view from the road I consider that the proposed barn here would not cause harm to the visual amenity of the area as suggested by the Council.

    I therefore conclude in respect of the main issue that the proposed development would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore accord with the aims of Policy DES1 of the Reigate and Banstead Local Plan Development Management Plan ([name]

    and the guidance contained within Supplementary Planning Guidance Householder Extensions and Alterations ([name] 2004) and the RBBC Local Character and Distinctiveness Design Guide Supplementary Planning document ([name] 2021) as new development is required, amongst other things, to respect the character of the surrounding area and the visual appearance of the immediate street scene.

  4. Section 05

    Conditions

    The conditions follow from those suggested by the Council. To ensure a high quality development, I shall include a condition about the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the building.

    In the interests of the maintenance of the character and appearance of the area I shall require the tree protection measures proposed to be undertaken as the details submitted and a soft landscaping scheme to submitted to the Council for approval.

    In the interests of certainty, I shall impose a condition requiring the development to be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans.

  5. Section 06

    Conclusions

    For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

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.

  • Other decision document

  • Appeal Decision

    Extracted inspector · page 1
    Inspector attribution ID 1184No official casework-database value to compare
    Extracted decision date · page 1
    23 September 2022Matches the official casework database
    Extracted site visit dates
    16 August 2022 (page 1)

Reference and authority

Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.

Case reference
3300045
Application reference
22/00520/HHOLD
Lead case reference
Not recorded
Planning authority
Reigate and Banstead Borough Council
Planning authority code
E07000211

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
33 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
Allowed
Decision category
Allowed
Received date
29 May 2022
Valid date
29 May 2022
Start date
10 June 2022
Planning authority decision date
29 April 2022
Appeal decision date
23 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
20979
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