Appeal 3273739
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
the demolition of existing garage and erection of a new studio to front elevation.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the demolition of existing garage and erection of a new studio to front elevation, at [site address] , St. Werburghs, Bristol [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 20/05967/H, dated December 2020, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:
The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: TFP 03 – Block/Site Plan and TFP 02 – Proposed Floor Plan and Elevations.
The material to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.
Section 03
Preliminary Matters
A revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) was published on 20 July 2021. The content of the revised Framework has been considered but in light of the facts in this case it does not alter my conclusion.
I have taken the description of development from the Council’s decision notice as this more concisely describes the proposal.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal site is located in a predominantly residential area with a retail shop and school opposite the site. The area is characterised by a row of similarly designed terraced properties fronting on to a public footpath. To the rear of the terrace are private gardens which have been developed over time providing outbuildings, sheds and garages that front on to [address] creating a roughly uniformed building line. These outbuildings vary in design and materials.
A garage is currently located at the site of the proposed development, and this directly fronts onto [address]. The proposed single storey studio will replace the garage and the submitted plans and appeal statement detail that the studio would be larger than the existing garage, however the increase is only by some 0.4 metres in width, 1 metre in depth and 0.3 metres in height.
Although slightly larger the new building would retain a rear access and garden area for the host dwelling. Its location, matching the building line of the existing garage, ensures that the proposed development does not project forward of this, thereby retaining the visual character of [address]. Further, I consider that the single storey nature of the proposed development and its use of matching materials would ensure its visual subservience to the host dwelling and not would detract from the character and appearance.
I note the Council’s concern regarding the location of the proposed development on a corner plot, however during my site visit I noted that an additional dwelling has recently been constructed adjoining No [site address] and a close boarded fence erected along its boundary. This dwelling, along with its boundary treatments, reduces the views of the appeal site when travelling north east along the adjoining highway ([address]). The main view of the appeal site is when travelling south west along [address], where currently the front elevation of the garage is visible. Nonetheless, as the proposed development would be viewed as a single storey outbuilding in the context of a residential development and other single storey outbuildings along [address] I am satisfied that it would not appear out of character with the surrounding area.
For the reasons set out above I consider that the proposed development would not be overly prominent or harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling or wider area. Accordingly, I find no conflict with Policy BCS21 of the Core Strategy1 (2011) (CS), Policies DM26, DM27, DM29 and DM30 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies2 (2014) or the guidance contained within the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), which seek, amongst other things, to ensure that development contributes positively to an area’s character and respects the character of host buildings and the broader street scene. The proposal also complies with paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks good design sympathetic to local character. 1 Bristol City Council Development Framework [name] (June 2011) 2 Bristol City Council Site Allocations and Development Management Policies – Local Plan (June 2014) Supplementary Planning Document Number 2 – A Guide for [address] Alterations and Extensions (October 2005)
Section 06
Conditions
In the interest of certainty and safeguarding the character and appearance of the area the conditions requested by the Council regarding time limit, adherence with plans and use of matching material are considered to be necessary.
Section 07
Conclusion
For the reasons given above I conclude 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 568No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 25 August 2021Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 3 August 2021 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3273739
- Application reference
- 20/05967/H
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Bristol City Council
- Planning authority code
- E06000023
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
- 1. Refused planning permission
- Appeal reason
- Refusal
- Type detail
- Planning Appeals - Full
- Jurisdiction
- Transferred
- Link status
- Not Linked
Site and development
Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.
- Site area
- Not recorded
- Floor space
- 20 m²
- Number of residences
- 0
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- No
- Affects setting of a listed building
- Not recorded
- 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
- 24 April 2021
- Valid date
- 22 May 2021
- Start date
- 30 June 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 24 March 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 25 August 2021
Case administration
Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.
- Redetermined
- No
- Bespoke
- No
- Date recovered
- Not recorded
- Date not recovered or derecovered
- Not recorded
- Call-in date
- Not recorded
- Costs applied for
- Not recorded
- 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
- Horizon
- Dataset status
- Current release
- Catalogue record ID
- 2337
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:25
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21