Skip to main content
Official casework recordAllowedCurrent release

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 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

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.

  1. 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.

  2. Section 03

    Procedural Matter

    The outbuilding has been already erected and is in use. The application is therefore for retrospective permission.

  3. 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].

  4. 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