Appeal 3359709
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
garage conversion and extension to create annex.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site includes the semi-detached dwelling of [site address] , its small front garden, and a hardstanding area with a single storey garage. The gable end of the dwelling faces the B5068. There are two large modern detached dwellings to the east and a converted chapel. To the west is an access to a bungalow, and a housing construction site beyond an area of trees and shrubs. There is an area of green space with dwellings to the rear on the opposite side of the B5068.
The proposed building would have a carport and garage at ground floor level with annex living accommodation above. Its orientation facing the B5068, although sited between dwellings which are set sideways to the road, would complement that of other dwellings to the east of the appeal site.
The hipped roof and dormer windows, along with the ground floor garaging arrangement at the front elevation, would be uncharacteristic in relation to the design of residential development in the vicinity. The development would be visually prominent in the street scene and would appear as a separate dwelling rather than as a subservient annex to [site address] because of its form, massing, scale, and design.
I find that the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would conflict with policy CS6 of the [name] and policy MD2 of the Shropshire Site Allocations and Management of Development (SAMDev) Plan which together require proposals to respect local context and character.
Section 05
Other Matters
Having regard to parking provision, the Highway Authority has raised no objections to the proposal. The provision of drainage would be a matter to be assessed under the Building Regulations.
Reference is made by the appellant to examples of other developments in the wider area involving garages with first floor uses, and a loft conversion. However, the building designs and site circumstances are not identical to that proposed at [site address] . Therefore, the examples form insufficient precedence to warrant allowing the proposed development in this appeal.
Section 06
Conclusion
I acknowledge the desire of the appellant to create separate annex accommodation for family reasons. The Planning Officer’s report states that there is no objection to the principle of the proposal. However, for the reasons given above, the development as proposed would fail to be of an appropriate form and design within the context of surrounding development. It would conflict with the design objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework and the development plan as a whole and 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 108No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 26 March 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 13 March 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3359709
- Application reference
- 24/02139/FUL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Shropshire County Council
- Planning authority code
- E06000051
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
- 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
- 28 January 2025
- Valid date
- 11 February 2025
- Start date
- 27 February 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 11 November 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 26 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
- 66938
- 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