Appeal 3348183
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
4 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 front double garage and extension to existing rear garage.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposal on the character of the streetscene.
Section 04
Reasons
[site address] is a detached two storey residential dwelling, situated on [site address] , Whinburgh. The site lies outside any defined [name]. The site is bounded by residential dwellings to the east and west, with open space and countryside to the north, and south. The development on [site address] is typical of rural housing in open countryside, with detached houses set back from the highway, the curtilage boundaries being marked mainly with hedges. However, the open front gardens are an important characteristic of the street.
[name] (April 2024) is the most relevant policy document. This states "Garages in front of dwellings will generally not be accepted due to visual prominence. Where garages are provided, they should be located to the side and either recessed from the building line or integrated into the massing".
The appellant draws attention to 2 existing garages on frontages and provides 3 photographs, 2 of which are of the same garage. One, at ‘[name], is set well back behind a grassed area, and the other, at the bend in the street to the west of this row of houses, is again some distance from the edge of the carriageway. Neither support the proposal. The appellant refers to the fact that there was a previous approval in 2014 for a double garage in approximately the same location as now proposed. I do not have any details of the precise location of that permitted garage, but 10 years have now gone by, and my decision rests on current policy and the appearance of the streetscene as it now exists.
I conclude that the proposed double garage, located just behind the hedge right on the curtilage boundary with the highway, would be a prominent and discordant feature in the streetscene, notwithstanding the hedge. Thus is would not be in accord with the [name] as it would have a detrimental effect on the character of the streetscene.
For these reasons the appeal will 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 129No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 3 January 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 12 December 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3348183
- Application reference
- 3PL/2024/0386/HOU
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Breckland Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000143
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
- No
- Historic building grant made
- No
- Relates to a conservation area
- No
- Flooding is an issue
- No
- Site within an AONB
- No
- Site within an SSSI
- No
Decision and dates
The published outcome and every imported case date.
- Official decision
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 16 July 2024
- Valid date
- 16 July 2024
- Start date
- 19 August 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 25 June 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 3 January 2025
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
- 62364
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:28
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21