Appeal 3306271
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
erection of garage and store.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site is a detached property that has been subject to extensions and alterations within a large plot in the hamlet of Horton, Wem. For planning purposes the site is within open countryside.
Irrespective of the size of the plot the excessive scale and height of the proposal means that the development would not appear ancillary or subservient to the main dwelling. Instead, it would be a prominent, incongruous addition.
The development would be set back from the road, use materials found in the area and be partially screened by vegetation. However, this would be insufficient to mitigate the harm. Based on my observations on site I disagree with the appellant and am of the view that their submitted street scene view would be reflective of what passers by would observe.
I acknowledge the appellant’s reasons for the proposed height of the building to enable roof space storage but this is outweighed by the harm it would cause.
The development would harm the character and appearance of the area and therefore would conflict with the part of Policy CS6 of the [name] which requires new development to be of high quality, be appropriate in scale and design, take into account local context and character and respect and enhance local distinctiveness. It would also conflict with Policy MD2 of the Shropshire Council Site Allocations and Management of Development Plan which amongst other things requires new development to respond appropriately to the form and layout of existing development including building heights and scale.
Section 05
Conclusion
For the reasons identified, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.
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 3546No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted site visit dates
- 7 November 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3306271
- Application reference
- 22/02531/FUL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Shropshire County Council
- Planning authority code
- E06000051
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
- 66 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
- 2 September 2022
- Valid date
- 2 September 2022
- Start date
- 19 October 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 18 July 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 8 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
- No
- 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
- 24809
- 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