Appeal 3307081
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
the erection of a single storey double garage.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed garage on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the [address] street scene.
Section 04
Reasons
The Council’s Notice of Refusal of the appeal application refers to the proposed garage having an unacceptably adverse effect on the house itself and the street scene of [address].
As regards the dwelling, I saw on my visit that it appears to have been extensively modernised and with a wide plot has a front curtilage of substantial size, for the most part subject to hard landscaping. With the position of the proposed garage close to the boundary with the garden of No. [address] than the dwelling, I do not consider that the character and appearance of the house would be adversely affected.
As regards the street scene, I saw on my visit that the run of properties along this immediate stretch of [address] (Nos. 45-53) all have frontage walls and fences at the back of the pavement and these are of a height sufficient to provide a degree of enclosure to their front gardens.
This does not prevent views from [address] into the majority of these gardens and although Nos. 45 & 47 are set slightly in front of the forwardmost part of No. 49 there is a broad consistency in the depth of the front building line and the absence of any ancillary buildings, including garages.
The submitted plans show a double garage with a depth of 4.5m and a width of 6m. With the pitched roof above this span the submitted drawings show a substantial built form with its ridge about twice the height of the brick front wall (excluding the higher piers). [name] have no criticism of the design or materials of the proposed garage I consider that a building of this size in front of the building would draw the eye and appear as being somewhat incongruous in the street scene.
The perception of the height and bulk of the garage would not be noticeably reduced by the slight reduction in land level below the pavement and although planting along the boundary can have a screening effect, it cannot be relied on to have a permanent benefit as regards hiding the building.
The grounds of appeal include photographs of buildings in [address], but most are outside the stretch of the road that includes No. 49. And in any event I consider these illustrate the harm that can occur from inappropriately sited buildings that are harmfully prominent in the street scene.
Overall, I conclude that the proposed garage would have an unacceptably harmful effect on the [address] street scene. This would conflict with Policy QD14 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan ([name] 2016); Policy DM21 of the Brighton and Hove City Plan Part Two 2022 and Section 12: ‘[name] of Government policy in the National Planning Policy Framework 2021.
For these reasons 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 204No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 6 March 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 18 January 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3307081
- Application reference
- BH2022/02177
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Brighton and Hove City Council
- Planning authority code
- E06000043
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
- Unknown
- 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
- 23 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
- 15 September 2022
- Valid date
- 29 September 2022
- Start date
- 4 November 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 30 August 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 6 March 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
- 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
- 29296
- 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