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 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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