Appeal 3340181
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
the erection of detached garage/cartlodge and barn for storage of machinery.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Procedural Matter
The above description is taken from the refusal notice as most aptly describing the proposed development.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed buildings on the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area, outside the defined settlement boundary of Kersey.
Section 05
Reasons
Cherrywood is a detached bungalow within a substantial plot and forms part of a varied group of properties, some with outbuildings. The site is in an essentially rural area, outside any defined settlement, and there is open countryside immediately beyond its northern boundary.
Cherrywood already has two outbuildings associated with the dwelling house. The proposed development would add two larger, traditional, single-storey structures to the group, extending it substantially further away from the bungalow and into the open rear part of the site, thus intruding into the countryside. The cartlodge, illustrated as accommodating two cars and a tractor, would measure about 67sqm and the barn about 90sqm on plan, in excess of the scale of outbuildings typically associated with a relatively modest domestic dwelling such as Cherrywood.
Policy SP03 of the adopted Babergh and Mid Suffolk Joint Local Plan concerns the sustainable location of new development and, with some exceptions, resists built development outside settlements, recognising the importance of protecting the intrinsic character of the countryside, in line with national
Section 06
planning policy.
The exceptions to Policy SP03 include residential annexes or extensions but, notably, there is no policy covering additional outbuildings in rural areas, such as those proposed in this case.
Whilst it is accepted law and practice that an extension does not need to be physically attached to its host dwelling, this appeal relates to outbuildings and not extended living accommodation. I consider the present proposals on their individual merits in any event.
In doing so, I reach the conclusion that the proposed built development, due its scale and location, would have an unacceptably intrusive impact on the adjacent countryside, detrimental to its character and appearance, contrary to Local Plan Policy SP03 and national policy.
I recognise that the appeal property and associated land extends over a substantial area and requires maintenance with the help of equipment which would the proposed buildings could accommodate. I also bear in mind that other local properties have outbuildings and find no fault with the individual design of those proposed in this case.
In my judgement, however, these considerations fail to override the substantive planning objection on grounds of adverse impact on the countryside.
I therefore conclude on balance 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 1576No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 17 July 2024Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 4 July 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3340181
- Application reference
- DC/23/03990
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Babergh District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000200
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
- 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
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 6 March 2024
- Valid date
- 6 March 2024
- Start date
- 2 April 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 9 February 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 17 July 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
- 54176
- 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