Appeal 3322882
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 garage.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
[name]
I consider the main issues to be the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site lies within a primarily residential area comprising predominately of dwellings of different designs. A distinct characteristic is that dwellings are set back into their plots by around 20 metres, with front boundaries comprising low walls and hedges. This open frontage appearance makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area.
The proposed detached garage would measure some 6 metres by 6 metres with a maximum height of some 4.36 metres. It would be situated some 11 metres in front of the house towards one side of the frontage.
Whilst the appeal site is wide and could accommodate the proposed garage, from my observations, due to its scale and position in this open frontage setting, the proposal would appear as a dominant and incongruous addition of built form within the streetscene. The landscaping proposals do not alleviate my concern. The purpose of landscaping should not be to hide otherwise unacceptable development.
For the reasons stated above and having taken into consideration all matters raised, I conclude that the proposal would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Thus, the proposal would be contrary to Policy DM23 in the Chelmsford Local Plan (2020) where it seeks to ensure that development respects the character and appearance of the area in which it is located. I consider this policy to be broadly in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, particularly where the Framework seeks to ensure good design that is sympathetic to local character.
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 1172No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 9 August 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 20 July 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3322882
- Application reference
- 23/00226/FUL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Chelmsford Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000070
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
- Not recorded
- Number of residences
- 0
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- Not recorded
- 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
- 24 May 2023
- Valid date
- 24 May 2023
- Start date
- 29 June 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 23 April 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 9 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
- 36872
- 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