Appeal 3326409
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 Erection of detached garage.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Procedural Matter
Amended plans were submitted during the application process, reducing the size of the proposed garage, the amended plans were considered by the Council. I have therefore considered this appeal on the basis of the plans refused as outlined on the decision notice.
Since the submission of the appeal the National Planning Policy Framework (2021) has been superseded by the National Planning Policy Framework (2023) (the Framework). However, in relation to this appeal the aims of both sets of policies are similar. No party would be prejudiced or caused any injustice by me proceeding with the appeal in light of this change in policy.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance on the area.
Section 05
Reasons
The site is located within a predominantly residential area where property designs vary. The property is situated on the outskirts of [site address] within the countryside.
I observed during my site visit that there were garages located to the front of plots and that there is a mixture of boundary treatments in the wider area. Notwithstanding this [site address] in the area of the appeal site has a rural quality, adjacent open fields bounded by mature landscaping.
The location of the proposed double garage to the front of the appeal plot, which currently has a verdant openness, would be a prominent feature. Whilst there are garages to the front of plots near the appeal site these are set back and not obvious in the streetscene.
The proposal would introduce a form of development which in this location would be dominant and incongruous in the streetscene. The effect of the scheme would diminish unacceptably the character and appearance of the area.
Landscaping is proposed between the development and [site address] which could be controlled through the imposition of a planning condition. Whilst this could soften the appearance of the proposed development this does not persuade me that the proposed development would not cause harm.
I conclude that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area. There is conflict with Policies DM2 and DM24 of the Forest Heath and St Edmundsbury Local Plan, Joint Development Management Policies Document (2015) which seek amongst other things to ensure development respects the prevailing character, scale and design of the locality.
There is conflict with Policy GB12 of the [site address] Neighbourhood Plan 2019-2041 (2021) which seeks amongst other things that developments reflect the local characteristics and circumstances of a site by creating and contributing to a high-quality environment.
There is conflict with the Framework which seeks to ensure developments are of good design.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the above reasons I conclude that this 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 126No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 25 October 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 19 October 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3326409
- Application reference
- DC/23/0672/HH
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- West Suffolk
- Planning authority code
- E07000245
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
- 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
- 21 July 2023
- Valid date
- 21 July 2023
- Start date
- 23 August 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 7 July 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 25 October 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
- 40845
- 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