Appeal 3306460
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
4 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
described as the erection of timber framed lean-to with semi-transparent polycarbonate side panel and roofing, erected on existing driveway to provide protection and for accessing mobility scooter (retrospective application).
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of this property and the area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal relates to this semi-detached house, which is located in a residential area of similar houses. The houses are set behind front gardens and most have an area for car parking within the frontage.
The house has a single-storey element at the side, which is set back from the frontage of the house and this is matched by a similar feature on the neighbouring property. The majority of the houses in the area also have a similar feature although some have evidently been modified.
The development which is the subject of this appeal has been erected in front of this recessed side part of the house and is set back from the main, 2 storey front elevation of the house. The structure has a timber frame and consists of plastic sheeting to the side and for the roof. It provides shelter for a mobility scooter.
Although it is set within this recessed area between the 2 houses, the structure appears as an obvious addition to the area. The use of non-matching materials and its rather makeshift appearance mean that it fails to harmonise with the existing house and add to its unacceptable visual effects. In my judgement, it is a prominent and obtrusive feature, which has a negative effect on the house and the area.
Policy H8 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 (LP) states, amongst other things, that planning permission to extend dwellings in the urban areas will be granted provided that the development: 1. Has no adverse effect on the scale and character of the dwelling; 2. Has no unacceptable effect on the amenities enjoyed by the occupants of adjacent buildings in terms of privacy and access to sunlight and daylight; 3. Has no unacceptable effect on the existing context and character of the adjacent buildings and immediate surroundings. Policy G5 includes a requirement that new buildings should respect the scale, height and proportions and materials of the surrounding environment. Policy D1 of the Local Plan Strategy and Sites (adopted 2019) refers to the need for new development to achieve a high quality of design. Having taken account of these requirements, I consider that the development which has been undertaken, fails to perform positively and has a harmful, negative effect on the surrounding area.
I have taken account of the fact that the development has been constructed to shelter a mobility scooter at the property. However, the need for such provision is outweighed by the negative effects of the proposal, that I have set out above. As a consequence, the appeal is 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 188No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 13 January 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 6 December 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3306460
- Application reference
- 21/P/02328
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Guildford Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000209
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
- 6 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
- 6 September 2022
- Valid date
- 19 September 2022
- Start date
- 16 November 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 28 July 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 13 January 2023
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
- 26475
- 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