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 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
erection of a carport to the frontage of the house.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
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.
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.
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