Ed Sheeran’s year of triumphs has continued – with a planning appeal victory.

The singer had appealed to the Planning Inspectorate after Suffolk Coastal District Council (SCDC) refused an application to improve parking facilities at his Suffolk home.

His proposals to build a “1.5 storey cart lodge with ancillary car parking” at a property in the Framlingham area – near where he grew up – were submitted to the council last year.

Although the application was supported by the local parish council with no objections from neighbours, planning chiefs at Suffolk Coastal said it was “creeping domestication and would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the countryside”.

SCDC’s case officer Anita Kittle said in a report that the cart lodge “would be an incongruous feature in the countryside”.

Last week, however, a planning inspector ruled in Ed’s favour.

Amanda Blicq said that while she agreed with the council that the cartlodge “would encourage some domestication” of the site, she did not believe it would “cause harm to the character and appearance of the countryside”.

In her decision notice, Ms Blicq, an inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, said she found no conflict with the council’s relevant Local Plan policies.

Although Ed’s appeal was said to have “argued that the case is of national interest”, Ms Blicq said she “determined the appeal on its merits and have given this no weight in my reasoning”.

She had visited the site on Friday, January 31 - the date presale tickets went on sale for Ed’s UK and European tour.

The decision was accompanied by conditions that the development must begin within three years, in accordance with approved plans and used “solely for domestic activities”

Other applications already approved for the site include a tree house, pod, orangery, decking and jacuzzi.

A spokesman for SCDC said: “Whilst the Planning Inspectorate recognised that the cartlodge was sited in the countryside, they did not support the council’s view that this would result in harm to the character and appearance of the countryside in this instance.”

Ed’s managements did not respond to previous requests for comment on the appeal.