Skip to main content
Official casework recordAllowedCurrent release

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 works

One-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.

  1. 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]

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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