Appeal 6004553
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
a detached garage.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
I consider the main issue to be the effect of the proposal on the character of the host dwelling and surrounding area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property lies within a row of dwellings set back from [address] behind mature landscaping. Where there are garages, they are predominately set back adjoining the sides of properties. The appeal dwelling is a detached five-bedroom property of traditional design.
The proposed detached garage would be situated to the front of the plot behind an existing front boundary hedge. It would measure some 7.3 metres in width, some 9 metres in depth and have a maximum height of approximately 4.6 metres.
From my observations, due to the excessive scale and massing of the proposal, I consider that it would unacceptably dominate the host dwelling. It would not appear as a subordinate addition, which would be to the detriment of the character of the dwelling. Even though it would be screened to a considerable extent, the scale and massing would be apparent within the streetscene of this private drive. This would be to the detriment of the character of the immediate surrounding area.
In reaching my conclusion I have had regard to all matters raised. Where there are detached garages in the wider area, none are directly comparable to the proposal before me with regard to their relationship to their host dwelling. I have considered the proposal before me on its individual merits.
For the reasons stated above, the development is contrary to saved Policy PS10 in the City of Leicester Local Plan (2006) and Policy CS03 in the Leicester City Core Strategy (2014), particularly where they seek good quality design that responds positively to its surroundings. In addition, the proposal would be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework where the Framework seeks to ensure good design that is sympathetic to local character. The above policies are broadly in accordance with the Framework on this matter.
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 1172No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 15 April 2026Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 8 April 2026 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 6004553
- Application reference
- 20251925
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Leicester City Council
- Planning authority code
- E06000016
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
- Not recorded
- Appeal reason
- refused
- Type detail
- Householder
- Jurisdiction
- No Jurisdiction Associated
- Link status
- Not recorded
Site and development
Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.
- Site area
- 0 hectares
- Floor space
- 1,509 m²
- Number of residences
- Not recorded
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- Not recorded
- Affects setting of a listed building
- Yes
- 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
- 3 February 2026
- Valid date
- 3 February 2026
- Start date
- 6 February 2026
- Planning authority decision date
- 28 January 2026
- Appeal decision date
- 15 April 2026
Case administration
Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.
- Redetermined
- Not recorded
- Bespoke
- Not recorded
- 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
- Back Office
- Dataset status
- Current release
- Catalogue record ID
- 87430
- 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