Skip to main content
Official casework recordAllowedCurrent release

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 works

One-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.

  1. 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.

  2. Section 03

    Main Issue

    The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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