Appeal 3316007
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
alteration of wall and demolition of lean-to shed, and creation of vehicle access and hardstanding.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Dethick, Lea and Holloway Conservation Area (the DLHCA).
Section 04
Reasons
The DLHCA Conservation Area Appraisal states that the retention of original boundary walls should be encouraged and in considering changes to means of access, care should be taken to minimise alterations to existing walls.
Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires me to have special regard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of Conservation Areas.
The proposal would remove a section of the boundary wall with the highway to facilitate off-street parking, with the loss of a lean to outbuilding attached to that section of the wall. This, by loss of this section of wall, would cause harm to the character and appearance of the DLHCA.
The appellant has directed me to a number of examples of other properties in the area that have carried out works to improve and facilitate off-street parking. However, I am not persuaded that this provides a justification for the proposal in this case, due to the vulnerability of the heritage significance of the Conservation Area to such development.
The extent of harm identified under this issue would be localised, and whilst I recognise the limited scale of the proposal, the proposal would harm the significance of the DLHCA as a whole. In the context of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), this would be less than substantial harm. Even so, I give great weight to the conservation of the DLHCA as directed by Paragraph 199 of the Framework. The less than substantial harm identified needs to be weighed against any public benefits of the proposal.
There is no evidence that the proposal would generate public benefits to weigh in its favour against the identified harm, other than the potential removal of one vehicle from the highway. Indeed, the proposal would facilitate off-street parking for private benefit. As such, there are no public benefits that outweigh the harm to the DLHCA.
The Council’s reason for refusal was explicit with the effect on the DLHCA only forming their reason. I therefore find conflict with [name] EN27 and LS3 of the Amber Valley Borough Local Plan (2006) which, amongst other matters, expect development to preserve or enhance the Conservation Area and respect the character of the locality.
The proposal would also conflict with the heritage objectives of the Framework. No other local policies quoted in the reason for refusal are specific to the heritage aspects of the proposal.
Section 05
Conclusion
The proposal conflicts with the development plan and there are no other considerations that outweigh this conflict. For the reasons outlined 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 221No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 9 May 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 18 April 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3316007
- Application reference
- AVA/2022/0595
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Amber Valley Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000032
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
- 20 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
- 3 February 2023
- Valid date
- 24 February 2023
- Start date
- 23 March 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 13 December 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 9 May 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
- 32330
- 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