Appeal 3326759
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
a freestanding open carport.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area and the host property.
Section 04
Reasons
Eastwood is located within a row of properties along the south-western side of [address]. The design, scale, and siting of the properties vary, and the residential area becomes more rural as [address] extends to the north-west.
The detached property is set some distance back from the road with the frontage used for parking and is enclosed by fencing. It has an existing forward projection which accommodates garaging and extends to just behind the front elevation of the neighbouring property, Brendons. The proposed carport to be sited adjacent to the garage would project significantly beyond, leaving a limited setback from the road. Whilst the building line along [address] varies this would be a notable projection. Together with the garage, which was also an addition, there would be a significant elongation of built form which would both be disproportionate to the property and out of keeping with the prevailing pattern of development.
Compared to other properties along the street which have more open frontages, Eastwood is more enclosed. Nonetheless, landscaping is not permanent and should not be relied upon to screen development. Due to its height and proximity to the road, the pitched roofed carport would be a prominent and incongruous addition to the street scene. Whilst the structure is relatively modest with open sides this would not be overly apparent from the road or minimise the impact of the development.
The appellant has referred to a number of other properties within the surrounding area which have structures towards the front of the plot. The planning history of these is not before me, nonetheless, I accept that there is variety in the position and relationship of buildings to the road. This is, however, part of the varied character of the area and therefore it is difficult to draw comparisons between individual properties, and each case is to be considered on its own merits.
Overall, I find that the siting and form of the development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area and the host property. It would therefore fail to accord with policy DM9 of the [name] and Development Management Policies Document, the Windlesham Neighbourhood Plan and [name] which promote high-quality design which respects local character, separation between buildings and boundaries, and enhances the roadside landscape.
Section 05
Conclusion
For the reasons set out and having regard to all other matters raised 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 362No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 16 October 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 21 September 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3326759
- Application reference
- 23/0531/FFU
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Surrey Heath Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000214
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
- 27 July 2023
- Valid date
- 27 July 2023
- Start date
- 23 August 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 18 July 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 16 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
- 40342
- 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