Skip to main content
Official casework recordDismissedCurrent release

Appeal 3339482

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

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

erection of a carport to the frontage of the house.

  1. Section 02

    Decision

    The appeal is dismissed.

  2. Section 03

    Main Issue

    The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the local area.

  3. Section 04

    Reasons

    The appeal property is a detached property on the south side of [address] (A281) which is one of the main routes into the town centre of Horsham, from the west. The property is set back from the road behind a frontage hedge and most of the generous area in front of the house is laid out as hardstanding. [address] and west of [address], the detached houses on either side of the road, and particularly along the northern side, are generally set back from the road frontage. There are a variety of frontage treatments including some fences and low walls, but many have dense and tall hedges presenting a verdant character and appearance to the street scene.

    The proposal would introduce a three bay car port at the front of the dwelling close to the boundary hedge. There would be adequate space to accommodate the car port within the site and it would not appear cramped in relation to the siting of the house and remaining area of front garden.

    With the frontage hedging in place, there would be limited, if any, views of the car port from the street and the verdant character and appearance of the local area would be retained. The Appellant has stated that the hedging is likely to remain in perpetuity and I have no reason to question this intention. However, there is very limited information before me regarding the detailed relationship between the car port with the frontage hedge and how the hedge would be protected during construction and thereafter.

    Without further and more detailed information I am not persuaded that it would be possible to construct the car port as shown with the hedge remaining in place or without causing damage at the time of construction or affecting its future health. Whilst some of these concerns might be possible to overcome through the imposition of conditions requiring further information and protection methods, I am not confident, on the very limited information in front of me, that there is an appropriate relationship between the siting of the car port and the frontage hedge to ensure its protection and retention. Without the existing hedge or alternative form of appropriate boundary treatment, the car port would be highly visible in the street scene. The car port would appear as an over dominant structure and its forward siting would appear out of character with the predominant pattern of development in the local area.

    On the basis of the limited information available, I am not therefore satisfied that the proposed development would not harm the street scene and the character and appearance of the local area. This would conflict with Policies 32 and 33 of the Horsham District Planning Framework and Policies HB3 and HB4 of the Horsham Blueprint Business Neighbourhood Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework and in particular Section 12, all of which, amongst other matters seek a high quality of design which respects the local context.

    The Council’s decision notice also refers to Policy 25 of the Horsham District Planning Framework, but that policy has not been provided and it is also not referenced in either the Council Officer’s report or the Appellant’s statement. I have therefore not referred to it my decision.

    The Appellant has drawn my attention to a very small number of garages and car ports which have been permitted and built in the local area, including to the houses on the north side of the road. Each proposal must be considered on its individual merits. However, in so far as the information has been made available, I have taken them into account, but they do not persuade me to a different view given the harm I have concluded in the particular circumstances of this case.

  4. Section 05

    Conclusion

    The proposal would not accord with the development plan and there are no other material considerations to override this finding. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, 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 257No official casework-database value to compare
    Extracted site visit dates
    9 May 2024 (page 1)

Reference and authority

Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.

Case reference
3339482
Application reference
DC/23/1861
Lead case reference
Not recorded
Planning authority
Horsham District Council
Planning authority code
E07000227

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
26 February 2024
Valid date
26 February 2024
Start date
12 March 2024
Planning authority decision date
17 January 2024
Appeal decision date
16 April 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
49621
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