Appeal 3300241
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 garden outbuilding.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a garden outbuilding at [address], [address], [name] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref. SDNP/21/ 00454/HOUS, dated 9 September 2021 and subject to the following conditions:
The existing curtilage boundary with [address] shall be supplemented with additional planting in the first planting season after the date of this Decision in accordance with details first approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. If within 5 years any plant dies or is removed or becomes seriously damaged or diseased, it shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species;
Any external lighting in the front garden shall be limited to that necessary to secure safe access to the outbuilding during the hours of darkness and shall be installed in accordance with details first submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority;
The outbuilding hereby permitted shall not be used at any time other than for purposes ancillary to, or incidental to the occupation of, the dwelling known as [address], [address], Lurgashall.
Section 03
Procedural Matter
The outbuilding has been already erected and is in use. The application is therefore for retrospective permission.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the outbuilding on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and its immediate surroundings in [address].
Section 05
Reasons
Ostensibly, the siting of an outbuilding in front of the dwelling and close to the road is inappropriate and likely to draw the eye as a harmful visual intrusion into the dwelling’s curtilage and its setting. In the event, the structure has already been constructed and I have therefore been able to assess its actual impact.
Contrary to the NPA’s assessment, I consider the outbuilding to be of a modest size for its context and of an appropriately simple and flat roof design, with timber cladding painted green. With these characteristics and substantially screened by the surrounding trees and shrubs, the outbuilding is discreet notwithstanding its forward position.
The outbuilding is likely to remain unseen by most if not all drivers along [address], or perhaps more precisely not consciously noticed. And although probably observed by most pedestrians, I do not consider it will be perceived negatively as being harmful to [address] or this part of the road through [name].
Furthermore, the building is used mostly for working from home by one of the appellants who as a psychotherapist on occasion has visiting patients including vulnerable children (one such appointment coinciding with my site visit). The position of the building close to the access and away from the back garden where the appellants’ young children play is one that gives more privacy, and a quieter environment than would be the case elsewhere on the site.
This is a factor that weighs in the balance and together with its ‘non-permanent’ construction as a garden building, in my view overcomes the policy objections on the increase in the dwelling’s floorspace. However, even with that factor discounted, the overriding conclusion from my visit is that the building with its suitable exterior of green painted timber, simple design and largely hidden presence would not be in harmful conflict with the cited South Downs NPA policies, nor with Sections 12 & 15 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021
I shall therefore allow the appeal. A condition requiring further planting along the roadside boundary will secure even more effective screening of the outbuilding. [name] do not regard the emission of artificial light from the flank windows of the building (not shown on the submitted plans) to be harmful to the character and appearance of the area and the [name] because of the mitigation from surrounding trees and vegetation, external lighting should be limited to that necessary to secure safe access and can therefore be the subject of a condition. Finally, a condition to restrict the use of the building to being ancillary or incidental to the dwelling will safeguard the character and appearance of the area.
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 204No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 19 December 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 24 November 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3300241
- Application reference
- SDNP/21/04454/HOUS
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- South Downs
- Planning authority code
- E26000010
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
- 21 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
- 31 May 2022
- Valid date
- 31 May 2022
- Start date
- 13 June 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 10 March 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 19 December 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
- 25451
- 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