Appeal 6006508
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
7 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
described on the planning application form as a ‘Retrospective Planning Application for Erection of [name].’
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
[name]
On site I observed that the appeal development is in situ.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal property is a bungalow of reconstituted stone on a large corner plot, situated within an area characterised by red brick bungalows with generally open frontages. There appear to be no stand alone outbuildings to the front of properties within the surrounding area.
The development introduces an outbuilding of timber construction with slate roof to the front of the property. The store is modest in size when compared to the bungalow, but it is highly prominent within the street scene as it projects a significant distance forward of the front of the dwelling. The log store appears to have been professionally constructed and well designed. However, due to its location near to the pavement as well as its contrasting use of materials, it appears stark and incongruous in the street scene. I do not consider that weathering of the materials in time would meaningfully reduce the unsympathetic appearance of the store.
In the event of this appeal being dismissed, the appellant suggests that logs would still be stored to the front of the bungalow but under tarpaulin. This fallback may occur, but the log store that is the subject of this appeal would be a permanent feature, irrespective as to whether the occupants of the property need to store logs outside the dwelling. As such, the appeal development would continue to have a worse effect on the character and appearance of the area compared to the fallback position.
The area to the front of the bungalow is used for parking. However, unlike the log store, vehicles stationed to the front of residences is common within the street scene. Also, parking on the site or adjoining properties does not prevent sight of the log store from the road.
Thus, I conclude the appeal development harms the identified character and appearance of the area contrary to Policies SS7, LC5 and SDC12 of the North East Derbyshire Local Plan (2021). These seek development of high quality design that responds positively to its local context and character.
Section 06
Other Matters
The appellant cites increased privacy as a benefit associated with the appeal scheme. This purported benefit attracts limited weight and does not overcome the identified harm.
Interested parties have raised concerns about highway safety. I am satisfied from the evidence provided by the Council that there is no detrimental impact on highway safety as a result of the appeal development.
Section 07
Conclusion
The appeal development conflicts with the development plan when read as a whole. Therefore, for the reasons given, I conclude that the 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 7187No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 5 June 2026Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 10 May 2026 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 6006508
- Application reference
- 25/00874/FLH
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- North East Derbyshire District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000038
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
- Planning Appeals - Full
- 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
- 6 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
- 16 March 2026
- Valid date
- 16 March 2026
- Start date
- 30 March 2026
- Planning authority decision date
- 22 December 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 5 June 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
- 89922
- 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