Appeal 3314739
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
6 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 outbuilding (Retrospective)’.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Preliminary Matters
I saw at my site visit that the outbuilding has been erected on site in accordance with the plans before me, therefore I have considered the appeal on the basis that the development has already taken place.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Section 05
Reasons
[address] is part of a wider suburban estate, with a consistent architectural form and pattern of development, including areas of landscaped open space which contribute positively to the softening of suburban form, improvement in biodiversity and a sense of space.
The timber outbuilding is located immediately next to detached garages in the front of the semi-detached appeal property, conspicuously and incongruously outside of the residential curtilage of the appeal property. Whilst sited next to the larger garage outbuilding, a timber outbuilding in this location is visually prominent from surrounding properties and a nearby footpath and appears stark and obtrusive in the street scene.
The Council set out that this area was formerly designated landscaped open space, and this is not disputed by the appellant. Its current use as a location for the outbuilding and for parking significantly detracts from open design of this part of the street scene and undermines its coherence. The addition of some limited planting around the outbuilding does not compensate for the loss of the open space.
The appellant provides photographs of outbuildings within the wider area. No addresses or further details are provided; however, I note that it is stated that none have the benefit of planning permission. As such, none are comparable to the development before me.
It is acknowledged that the planning application did not receive any objections from the occupiers of neighbouring properties, indeed attracted some support. However, this is a neutral factor which does not alter my conclusions on the main issue. Whilst the appellant has set out that the development complies with other policies and various paragraphs of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), this to be expected in any development and does not weigh in favour of the proposal.
Consequently, the development conflicts with Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011 – 2029 (2016) which, in accordance with the Framework, requires development to be visually attractive and positively contribute to the local distinctiveness, sense of place, and the appearance and use of streets and other public spaces. It also conflicts with the protection of street scene guidance in the Council’s Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document (2018).
Section 06
Conclusion
For the reasons given above, 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 3478No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 27 July 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 17 July 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3314739
- Application reference
- 22/01631/RET
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000084
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
- 1,426 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 January 2023
- Valid date
- 14 April 2023
- Start date
- 20 June 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 25 October 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 27 July 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
- 36229
- 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