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 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
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.
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.
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.
Section 04
Main Issue
The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
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.
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.
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.
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