Appeal 3359480
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
6 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
erection of a sectional garage.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
The site is located within a predominantly residential area where property designs vary. I observed during my site visit that there were a few garages located to the front of plots within the area, however these were not common.
The appeal site property is set back on the plot in comparison to the adjacent property No. [address] as such the proposed development would be screened to a degree by the adjacent property. I also observed that a large trailer parked adjacent the appeal site at No. 425 which again would provide limited screening.
Nevertheless, the trailer is moveable and whilst the adjacent property No. 421 is set forward the proposed development would be obvious and incongruous in the streetscene. I find that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area.
There is conflict with saved Policies CP3 and CP4 of the Derby City Local Plan Part 1: [name] (2017) which seek amongst other things to ensure developments are well designed responding to their context.
There is also conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) which seeks to ensure developments are of good design appropriate and sympathetic to their surroundings.
Section 05
Other Matters
The appellant has highlighted that the proposed development is required due to the personal circumstances, to cover a classic car. I have not been provided with substantive evidence to demonstrate that the proposed development would be the only way to fulfil the needs of the appellant. Notwithstanding this the covering of a classic car would not outweigh the harm I have identified about.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the above reasons I conclude that this appeal should 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 126No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 28 March 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 23 March 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3359480
- Application reference
- 24/01611/FUL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Derby City Council
- Planning authority code
- E06000015
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
- 24 January 2025
- Valid date
- 27 January 2025
- Start date
- 6 February 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 23 December 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 28 March 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
- 67122
- 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