Appeal 3337624
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
a car port/garage.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a car port/garage at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/23/01745, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:
The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos 772/03, 772/02 [name] and Location Plan.
The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed in the materials detailed on the application form.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site is occupied by a newly built single storey detached dwelling which is set well back from the road with a large open front garden. The properties immediately adjacent to the appeal site follow a similar pattern of development, set back from the road with open front gardens. Although in an urban, residential location, this section of [address] is a narrow, unmade road with a relatively rural, verdant appearance.
The proposed car port/garage is located forward of the host dwelling, within the front garden area. There is currently limited built form forward of the principle building line in the immediate surrounding area, giving it an open appearance. Nevertheless, the proposal would not be an excessively large addition to the site and is easily accommodated within the large front garden, well set back from the roadside. The open nature of the car port section of the proposed building would also reduce the bulk of development. Therefore, it would not have a detrimental impact on the open character of the surrounding area or appear overly intrusive in this setting.
The relatively modest scale of the proposal would ensure that it does not visually compete with the main dwelling or its principle gabled elevation, and its siting, alongside the boundary, would not block any key views of the host building.
The proposed car port/garage has a traditional design with stained timber boarding and a slate roof. Whilst this style of development may be more akin to a countryside setting, due to the rural appearance of [address], the proposal would not appear as an overly incongruous feature within the streetscene. It is also noted that timber boarding is well used in the surrounding area and therefore would not be out of character.
Therefore, for the reasons above, the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area and would not conflict with Policy DBE3 of the Canterbury District Local Plan (2017). This policy seeks to ensure that development proposals are high quality design solutions which are appropriate to the site. The proposal would also accord with the general design objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.
Section 05
Conditions
In addition to the standard time period for commencement of the development, I have attached a condition requiring the development to accord with the approved plans, as this provides certainty and precision. Furthermore, a condition has been included requiring details of all external facing materials to accord with the details provided on the application form, to ensure an appropriate appearance for the development.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.
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 3373No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 11 November 2024Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 22 October 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3337624
- Application reference
- CA/23/01745
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Canterbury City Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000106
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
- 28 m²
- 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
- Allowed
- Decision category
- Allowed
- Received date
- 26 January 2024
- Valid date
- 26 January 2024
- Start date
- 4 April 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 13 November 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 11 November 2024
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
- 59776
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:28
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21