Appeal 3328420
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
3 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
detached double garage.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Reasons
The proposed double garage would be located between the front of the host dwelling and the road. The front garden of the site is enclosed by 1.8m fencing to either side and by a low wall with an approximately [address] of conifers to the roadside boundary. The ground level falls away steeply towards the road and it is proposed to excavate the ground further to reduce the overall height of the garage.
[address] can be characterised as comprising undeveloped open frontages which are primarily used for parking and as amenity space. The garage would be large and would stand in front of the [address] building line, thereby introducing development into this spacious area and significantly reducing the amount of undeveloped front garden. The conifer hedge and the reduction in ground level would limit some views of the proposed garage from the road. However, the conifers would only screen the garage directly from the front. There would be views into the site from both side directions above the boundary fences and the garage would also be clearly visible from neighbouring properties. Thus, in the proposed location the proposed development would appear out of character with the surrounding area.
There is a detached garage to the front of the dwelling at [address]. It differs from the appeal proposal as it is smaller, stands close to the host dwelling and is set back considerably from the road. The neighbouring garage therefore does not impact on the openness of the frontage to the same degree as the proposed development.
In terms of setting a precedent for further similar development, each planning application should be determined on its individual merits. Furthermore, the host dwelling is of an individual design and layout and the existing boundary treatments are unlikely to be repeated elsewhere.
Overall, I conclude that the appeal proposal would harm visual amenity and is therefore contrary to Barnsley Local Plan Policy D1, which, in summary, expects development to be of a high-quality design and to respect, take advantage of and to reinforce the distinctive, local character and other features. Furthermore, the proposal would not satisfy the design criteria set out in the National Planning Policy Framework. The garage would meet some of the requirements of the Council’s SPD: ‘[name] and other [name] in that it would relate sympathetically to the main dwelling in style, and external finishes. However, there is unacceptable conflict with the guidance that ‘in most cases, it will not be appropriate for a garage to be sited between the house and the road’.
For the reasons set out above, 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 322No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted site visit dates
- 28 October 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3328420
- Application reference
- 2023/0164
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E08000016
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 August 2023
- Valid date
- 24 August 2023
- Start date
- 2 October 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 6 June 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 13 November 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
- 41885
- 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