Skip to main content
Official casework recordAllowedCurrent release

Appeal 3347996

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

8 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

No verified development description has been extracted from an official decision PDF yet.

  1. Section 02

    Decision

    The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a detached two bay cartlodge at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application reference DC/24/02165 dated 8 May 2024 subject to the following 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 plans: Existing and Proposed 567-001A and Defined Red Line Plan 567-001A.

  2. Section 03

    [name]

    The description of development in the planning application form is “Proposed detached cartlodge”. However, I have taken the description from the Notice of Decision in this case as it more clearly describes the appeal proposal.

  3. Section 04

    Main Issue

    The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

  4. Section 05

    Reasons

    The appeal property is a detached bungalow which lies at the end of a group of similar properties with garden areas to the road frontage. There is a degree of open plan style layout along the street, however the extent of fencing and mature planting including trees and hedging interrupts the rhythm of open frontages. Adjacent to the appeal property is an access to a paddock next to a two storey detached dwelling which is also set back from the road frontage. The group of bungalows have a fairly consistent building line, however this is not maintained by the other dwellings within the streetscene.

    The appeal proposal would introduce built development to the front of the appeal property. It would be the only detached outbuilding forward of the building line of the group of bungalows. It would also impact on the open plan style to a degree.

    However, the appeal property is situated at the end of the group of bungalows. When considering the position of the appeal property within the whole streetscene, the impact of the built development at the frontage, set back from the highway by approximately 5.5 metres, would not unduly disrupt the degree of openness to the front of the bungalows or unacceptably impact upon the building line within the existing streetscene as a whole.

    The appeal proposal would be subservient in height to the host dwelling and of traditional design and materials in keeping with local distinctiveness and character.

    My attention has been drawn to other cartlodges in the area that sit forward of dwellings and through observations on my site visit I find that these are a prevalent feature in the wider locality.

    Overall, I find that the proposal would not materially harm the character or appearance of the host dwelling or the surrounding area. Consequently, I find that the proposal complies with policies LP17 and LP24 of the Babergh and Mid Suffolk Joint Local Plan – Part 1 (2023), policy EMST12 of the Elmsett Neighbourhood Plan (2019) and paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) in terms of the positive impact of its design that complements the character of the surrounding area and the host dwelling.

  5. Section 06

    Other Matters

    The Parish Council is concerned that approving the proposal would set a precedent. However each application would be dealt with on its own merits having regard to the individual circumstances. It is due to the particular context of the appeal site that I find this proposal acceptable.

  6. Section 07

    Conditions

    I have had regard to the conditions suggested by the Council. I have imposed a condition specifying the approved plans as this provides certainty.

  7. Section 08

    Conclusion

    For the above reasons the proposal complies with the development plan taken as a whole and the Framework. I therefore conclude that 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 7187No official casework-database value to compare
    Extracted decision date · page 1
    18 November 2024Matches the official casework database
    Extracted site visit dates
    27 October 2024 (page 1)

Reference and authority

Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.

Case reference
3347996
Application reference
DC/24/02165
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
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
Allowed
Decision category
Allowed
Received date
13 July 2024
Valid date
13 July 2024
Start date
30 August 2024
Planning authority decision date
4 July 2024
Appeal decision date
18 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
60170
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