Appeal 3349798
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
5 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
block built detached garage to the side, within the boundary fence adjacent to [address], clad externally to match existing house.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a block built detached garage to the side, within the boundary fence adjacent to [address], clad externally to match existing house at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, 24/00656/HH, 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: Proposed garage plans and elevations reference 001-2, 1:200 scale site plan, location plan 1:1250.
Section 03
[name]
The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property occupies a plot at a road junction, thus fronting the public highway on two sides. The two-storey dwelling falls within a suburban residential area containing housing of a mixed but generally complimentary design and density. The front garden of this house is defined by a low fence which preserves the open character at this corner location. The back garden is bound by a taller fence that runs along the roadside boundary and behind which the detached garage is to be sited.
The dwelling has had single storey additions to the front and side, possibly displacing an original garage directly adjacent to the original house. The Council's refusal reason relates to the detached garage being forward of the building line established by the extended side to the main house and thus being unduly prominent and harmful to the open character of this prominent corner location.
However, the small, detached garage would be both of matching materials to the main house and enclosed by the pre-existing tall, close boarded fencing. Therefore, despite being forward of the building line and adjacent to the road, it would neither appear unduly discordant nor be of significant harm to the open character of the street scene at this visible corner site.
The Council’s refusal notice referenced conflict with three policies of the Braintree District Local Plan 2013-2033. For the reasons I have given, the proposal would be without material adverse detriment to the existing character of the settlement, thus complying with Policy LPP 1. The proposal would not amount to over-development, taking account of the cumulative impact of extensions and outbuildings on the original character of the property and its surroundings, and be both compatible with and subordinate to the existing house, in accordance with Policy LLP 36. The proposal would not detract from the character and appearance of this residential area and satisfy all relevant criteria of Policy LPP 52, in respect of the layout and design of development.
Section 05
Conclusion
The extensions proposed satisfy the relevant policies of the development plan. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds.
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 997No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 3 January 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 17 December 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3349798
- Application reference
- 24/00656/HH
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Braintree District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000067
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
- No
- 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
- 9 August 2024
- Valid date
- 9 August 2024
- Start date
- 4 September 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 4 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
- 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
- 62370
- 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