Appeal 3365447
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
a new detached garage.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a new detached garage at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]-24-0058-HSE, and the plans and documents submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:
The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing no. 24058/001P - [name].
The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed in the materials shown on drawing no. 24058/001P - [name] and maintained as such in perpetuity.
The methods of working to provide protection for the adjacent [name] (T1) shall be implemented in accordance with the Arboricultural Impact Assessment/Statements and Tree Protection Plan dated 19/09/2024.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property is a large, detached house located in a residential street where properties of a similar size are set back on their plots with parking areas and gardens to the front. The property has a dual gated driveway entrance to the front with a mature Laurel hedge along its boundary with the highway.
Many of the properties in the street have double or triple garages positioned forward of the building line of the host dwelling and neighbouring properties. This includes a group of dwellings that I saw were under construction to the north. It also includes the neighbouring property [address], which the appeal development would flank. In this context the proposed introduction of a detached double garage to the front driveway of the appeal property would not be out of place, particularly as it would be located tight to the boundary, so would not interrupt the face of the property and would be offset by the established garden and the boundary hedge along the street frontage.
Whilst the proposed garage would project beyond the garage of [address], due to screening provided by a mature [name] and existing vegetation, this misalignment would not be noticeable.
Even though it would be taller and bulkier than the full hipped garage of No 75, it would still look subservient to the host dwelling as there would be a clear stepping down in its roof height. Furthermore, finished in matching materials it would have a unified appearance.
With regards to the proposed dormers, whilst they would align with the main roof ridge and would be slightly elongated, the setback from the eaves and in from the sides and paired alignment with the garage doors would ensure that they would not be unduly prominent in front and side views.
I accept that there are some elements of the Council’s ‘[name] & Householder Development’ Supplementary Planning Document July 2018 with which the extension may not comply. However, for the reasons I have explained above, this does not alter my view that the garage’s design would complement the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area.
For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, I find no conflict with Policy H9 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: [name]; or Policy CP29 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: [name]. These policies require ancillary detached buildings to be in-keeping with the scale and character of the property and its surroundings and to retain or enhance the landscape setting and be of an exemplary standard of design with a high-quality external appearance.
Section 05
Conditions
As suggested by the Council, to meet legislative requirements, a condition shall be imposed to address the period for commencement. I shall also impose conditions requiring compliance with plans, to provide certainty, and requiring the use of materials matching the host property as shown on the plans, in order to maintain the character and appearance of the property and the area.
In addition, given that the neighbouring [name] is the subject of a Tree Preservation Order, I find that it is also necessary to attach a condition to ensure that the measures in the Arboricultural Impact Assessment/Statements and Tree Protection Plan are implemented during the course of development.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.
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 4996No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 16 October 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 16 September 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3365447
- Application reference
- EHDC-24-0058
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- East Hampshire District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000085
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
- Unknown
- 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
- Allowed
- Decision category
- Allowed
- Received date
- 9 May 2025
- Valid date
- 9 May 2025
- Start date
- 15 May 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 4 March 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 16 October 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
- 78044
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:29
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21