Appeal 3309710
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
a detached garage with store room above.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the site and its surroundings.
Section 04
Reasons
The proposal is for a detached garage building to be associated with No 1, a semi-detached property with garden behind on the east side of [address]. The garage would be sited within a long rectangular wooded area which extends to one side as far as the B4507, accessed via an existing driveway from that road which runs through the woodland up towards the side of No 1 ending in a small parking area.
The three-bay garage would be about 9.3 m wide by 6.0 m deep, with a duo-pitched roof about 5.6 m to the ridge. An external staircase would lead into a storage area within the roofspace with a centrally placed dormer window on one side. The garage would be sited in a clearing on one side of the driveway within the woodland some way short of the parking area.
There is no objection to a detached garage in principle, indeed No 2, the other semi-detached property, has a recently constructed two-bay garage to one side. The proposed materials, timber weatherboarding and tiled roof, would be sympathetic. However, in this case the substantial three-bay garage with storage above would be located well away (over 30 m) from the main house, where it would appear visually detached from its host property and oddly located in the middle of the wooded area rather than being closely associated with the primary building. The slightly lower ground level and ridge height do not mitigate this point. No explanation is provided why this site has been chosen particularly as the delegated report notes that there was previously an outbuilding at the end of the driveway adjacent to the domestic garden of No 1 where it would have appeared part of the cluster of residential buildings.
Core Policy 37 of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan Part 1 2016 requires new development to respond positively to the site and its surroundings and to reinforce local identity. The Council’s Joint Design Guide 2022 provides specific guidance as to the design of garages and outbuildings, essentially that they should be well related but subservient to the host dwelling.
Section 05
Conclusion
In this case the combination of the scale of the proposed garage, its location in the middle of the wooded area and the degree of separation from the main dwelling would significantly harm the character and appearance of the site and its surroundings contrary to Core Policy 37 and the principles of the [name]. The importance of a sensitive scheme in this location is increased due to its location within the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty where great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty. The benefits of providing a triple garage with storage for the appellant do not outweigh these considerations.
Having regard to the above 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 1064No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 7 August 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 28 July 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3309710
- Application reference
- P22/V0855/FUL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Vale of White Horse District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000180
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
- 90 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
- Yes
- 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
- 25 October 2022
- Valid date
- 25 October 2022
- Start date
- 2 March 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 5 September 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 7 August 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
- 36697
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:27
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21