Appeal 3349946
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 new carport (part-retrospective).
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The refusal notice includes reference to this development giving rise to less than substantial harm to the setting of neighbouring listed buildings. However the officer’s report gives no indication of the location of listed buildings, although it mentions a nearby [name] listed building, and it does not explain how it is judged that harm would arise from the carport. Furthermore, the council’s appeal questionnaire states that the proposed development would not affect the setting of a listed building (question 7.b). At my visit I could see nothing which would suggest that this element of the refusal was justified. [name] consider that the issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the streetscene.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property is a detached dwelling on the south side of the main road through this part of the village. Most of dwellings are detached and have 2 storeys on this side, including the chalet form of bungalow, whilst on the opposite, north side, the majority are single storey. [site address] is narrow, with limited verges. From the junction with [address] to just beyond [address], the dwellings have rather open frontages with low walls, hedges and palling fences. East of this length, in the section that includes the appeal site, there is a change in character, whereby there is much greater enclosure of the front gardens by tall hedges and bushes which develops further along to include tall trees along with the hedgerows.
The appeal property has a sloping herby verge running up from the carriageway topped with a substantial hedge. The carport, the construction of which has started, is located at the front of the curtilage, just behind the hedge. This hedge reduces the impact of the carport, but does not hide it completely from view. The submitted drawings of the carport do not help an understanding of its impact. The location is shown in a diagrammatic way, rather than by an accurate drawing, and the elevations present a rather crude design that would not be acceptable in this rather picturesque streetscene.
The application form described the materials as ‘Wood frame, covered in wood feather board, stained with a black shed paint’. Such materials may well be satisfactory, and the workmanship skilled, but unless the design is appropriate and of high quality, the resultant building will not be acceptable.
[name] saw at my site visit and the documentation provided with the appeal, leads me to conclude that allowing the development in the form presented would lead to harm to the streetscene, and the character and appearance of [site address] . Thus the development is contrary to Policy DM3.8 of the South Norfolk Local Plan, Policy 6 of the Diss and District Neighbourhood Plan and Policy 2 of the Greater Norwich Local Plan. 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
- 31 December 2024Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 13 December 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3349946
- Application reference
- 2024/0299
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- South Norfolk District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000149
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
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 12 August 2024
- Valid date
- 12 August 2024
- Start date
- 11 September 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 22 May 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 31 December 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
- 62294
- 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