Appeal 3342571
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
7 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
for the erection of a detached double garage.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for a detached double garage at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, 23/02551/HOU, dated 20 November 2023 and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions: -
The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved submitted plans:- Location Plan GP/01/21 Existing Block Plan and [name]/02/21 Proposed Block Plan GP/03/21 Proposed floor plan, elevation and cross sections
No development shall commence until details / samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details / samples.
No development or preparatory work shall take place until a scheme for the protection of the trees and hedges in accordance with the Tree Location & Protection Plan (Appendix b to the Tree Survey and Arboricultural Impact Assessment prepared by [name]) has been implemented. The fencing shall be maintained during construction and all works shall accord with paragraphs 5.5 and 6.1 of [name] 5837: Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - Recommendations (or in an equivalent [name] if replaced).
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area, including the Crondall Conservation Area.
Section 04
Reasons
Crondall Conservation Area comprises much of the village with a layout of narrow streets lined with many historic buildings and vegetation which contribute to its character. This includes [address] where the grain of the residential properties becomes looser away from the village centre and the boundary treatments more informal. [site address] is a detached property set back from the road which was built in the 2000s. It is identified within the Crondall Conservation Area Appraisal, December 2023 (CCAA) as a modern property which does not contribute to the character of the Conservation Area. The front boundary of a low brick wall and hedging reflects the form and enclosure along this part of the street and restricts views of the property. Notwithstanding this, there are also properties within the vicinity which have forward projections or structures close to the road.
The proposed oak frame garage would be sited in a forward position to the side of the access driveway which is shared with its neighbour. The ground level within the site is elevated from the road, effectively aligning with the top of the boundary wall. However, fencing and hedging above, which continues along the side boundary, screen the space and extend up to a height of approximately 3- 3.5m. Whilst the height of the hedging is not fixed it is a well-established feature and the CCAA advises that front boundary treatments are covered by an Article 4 Direction.
The garage would have an asymmetrical form with the eaves to the northeastern elevation (to the road) at a height of less than 2m and the ridgeline would be positioned some distance back. It is also proposed to slightly lower the existing ground level. As directed by the appellant, and seen on my site visit, there are other garages nearby in a similar location including at The Neuk, opposite, and the garage to [address] is immediately adjacent to the road. As such, I do not find that the siting is out of keeping and subject to the use of appropriate materials any glimpses of the structure over the boundary would not be overly incongruous or conspicuous in the street scene.
Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires special attention to be given to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area. Having regard to the significance of the Conservation Area, which includes the rural character created by the enclosure and greenery of the streets, I find that the character would be preserved.
There are several listed buildings along [address], including the neighbouring property to the north, [address]. The Council have not raised any concerns with regard to their setting and given the scale and type of the development and the intervening vegetation, I have no reason to disagree.
Overall, I do not find the garage would be a discordant feature due to its location and the character and appearance of the area would be maintained. Therefore, the proposal accords with policies NBE8 and NBE9 of the Hart Local Plan (Strategy and Sites) 2032 and saved policy GEN1 of the Hart Local Plan 2006, which amongst other things, promotes high-quality design, development that reflects its surroundings, respects the local landscape and conserves heritage assets. It would also reflect the similar provisions of Policies 3 and 7 of the Crondall Neighbourhood Plan which promote good design and the conservation of the Conservation Area appropriate to its significance.
Section 05
Conditions
In line with the statutory requirements conditions are required relating to the commencement of development and the plans in order to provide certainty.
In the interests of the character and appearance of the area and the conservation area setting I have imposed conditions requiring the materials to be approved and to ensure the protection of the trees and hedges during construction. Given the nature of these requirements, they have to be pre-commencement and the appellant has confirmed their agreement to these
Section 06
conditions.
The Council has proposed a condition restricting the structure to an ancillary use and to prevent independent occupation. As a householder proposal, the development is for purposes related to the residential property. The building is also designed for its function as a garage and is to be sited in front of the house; therefore, I do not consider the condition necessary.
Section 07
Other Matters
For the reasons set out and having regard to all other matters raised the appeal is 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 362No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 5 July 2024Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 14 June 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3342571
- Application reference
- 23/02551/HOU
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Hart District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000089
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
- Yes
- 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
- 15 April 2024
- Valid date
- 15 April 2024
- Start date
- 17 May 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 25 January 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 5 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
- No
- 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
- 53585
- 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