Appeal 3320158
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
a new access and dropped kerb.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed access and parking space on the character and appearance of the area at the junction of [address] with [address].
Section 04
Reasons
I saw on my visit that to either side of [address] at its junction with [address] there are pairs of semi-detached houses. Whilst the pairs differ from one another in terms of design they have a common denominator in the form of an open plan grassed curtilage set within a framework of the front elevations of the dwellings and trees and bushes to the flanks.
The construction of an access to No. [address] and the provision of a parking space on the western half of the front lawn would in my view draw the eye as a harmful alteration to the ‘soft’ landscape of both sides of the junction, which despite comprising four ownerships is seen as a providing a visually coherent and pleasing part of [address].
The grounds of appeal refer to a synthetic material for the hardstanding area that would blend in with the lawn. However, whilst this would be preferable to tarmac it would still be easily seen and likely to be perceived as an unsympathetic alteration to the verdant frontage. Moreover, such an alteration would not resolve the more important harmful effect of the actual parking of a vehicle within this open frontage.
No. 18 has two parking spaces in the form a hardstanding and a single garage a short distance along [address]. In the absence of any special circumstances forming part of the grounds of appeal it would appear that the proposal is to make parking more convenient for the appellant. I consider that this is insufficient to outweigh the harm that would be caused by the access and parking area to the character and appearance of the area at the junction of [address] with [address].
This harm would result in a conflict with Policy DP26 of the Mid Sussex District Plan 2014-2031 adopted in 2018; the [name] and Section 12: ‘[name] of the National Planning Policy Framework 2023.
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 July 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 19 June 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3320158
- Application reference
- DM/22/3753
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Mid Sussex District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000228
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
- Not recorded
- 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
- 11 April 2023
- Valid date
- 11 April 2023
- Start date
- 30 May 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 31 January 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 6 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
- 35210
- 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