Appeal 6008048
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 domestic garage.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a domestic garage at Lowlands, [site address] , [site address] , Spalding, Lincs, [postcode] in accordance with the application Ref H09-0011-26, 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 the following approved plans: 4442-25 01B Proposed floor plan and elevations, site & location plan; ECL1723 - 6 January 2026 - [name]
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
Lowlands is a traditional, detached bungalow that I saw is currently undergoing a process of renovation, the end one of three similar properties on [site address] in an edge of village location with fields opposite. The dwellings are set on wide plots with generous spaces between buildings and are set back from the road behind front gardens.
The appeal dwelling has a long frontage to the road and is set back from it at a significantly lower ground level. The driveway runs parallel to the road across the frontage of the bungalow. The proposed garage would be sited at the end of the driveway in the front part of the plot and positioned against the high, leafy side boundary. It would be at the same ground level as the bungalow and below that of the road. It would have a pitched roof with its doors and gable end facing the driveway.
A high hedge, trees and a fence along part of the front boundary would provide some screening from the road although it would be seen in the approach from the east. I saw that the adjacent bungalow has a detached single garage with a pitched roof and other dwellings in the village have detached garages. Whilst those are set back from the road, they are generally more visible than the proposed garage would be.
At 5m x 4m and with a height of 3.5m, the garage would be significantly smaller in scale than the existing bungalow and its pitched roof form would reflect the pitched and gabled roof form of the bungalow. The proposed materials of oak feather edge boarding would be appropriate in this rural location and the proposed slate tiles would match those of one of the nearby other bungalows and could be replicated in the renovation of the main part of the dwelling.
Although the proposal would be set forward of the building line of the bungalow, its discreet siting at the side of the plot on lower ground, together with its appropriate appearance mean that it would not be unduly prominent in the street scene and would sit comfortably next to the existing bungalow and within its surroundings.
I conclude therefore that it would not result in harm to the character and appearance of the area and would accord with development plan policies 2 and 3 of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036 (adopted 2019) which together seek to ensure that proposals take into account considerations such as quality of design and the impact on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 05
Conditions
In addition to the standard commencement condition, a condition is necessary requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans, to provide certainty.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposed development would accord with the development plan and there are no material considerations that would outweigh that. 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 227No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 12 June 2026Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 2 June 2026 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 6008048
- Application reference
- H09-0011-26
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- South Holland District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000140
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
- 753 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
- Allowed
- Decision category
- Allowed
- Received date
- 13 April 2026
- Valid date
- 13 April 2026
- Start date
- 21 April 2026
- Planning authority decision date
- 11 March 2026
- Appeal decision date
- 12 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
- 90361
- 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