Appeal 3278753
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
a first-floor rear extension above an existing single storey extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Appeal Procedure
The site visit was undertaken by an Appeal Planning Officer whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the rear extension on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupants of No.20 with regard to outlook and whether it would be overbearing.
Section 05
Reasons for the Recommendation
The appeal property is a two-storey dwelling set within a residential area. There is an existing pitched roof single-storey extension and garden towards the rear. The surrounding properties are similar in appearance and the building line of the dwellings is staggered. The host dwelling is attached to No.20 by its garage with the main rear elevation of the appeal property set behind that of this attached neighbour. There is a gap between the properties at first floor level.
The proposal consists of a first-floor rear extension that would include additional living space and a bedroom. When taking account of the staggered building line, the proposed extension would project significantly beyond the rear elevation of No.20 especially at first floor level. This would reduce the outlook from the neighbouring house and would be overbearing to a harmful degree. Given the overall length of the property as extended, the gap at first floor level would not mitigate the impact to an acceptable degree. Impact on direct sunlight would only occur in the early part of the day. However, this does not minimise an overbearing effect.
Although there have been no formal objections from the neighbouring residents, the living conditions of the current and any future occupiers of these dwellings must be considered. There is not sufficient information to determine whether a similar proposal would be allowed under permitted development rights and, through an appeal relating to an application for planning permission it is not possible to reach a formal determination on such matters. Therefore, I give this factor only very limited weight and it would not outweigh the harmful effects of the development.
For the reasons detailed above, the rear extension would harmfully affect the living conditions of the occupants of No.20 in terms of outlook and being overbearing. This would not accord with Policy PSP8 and PSP38 of the South Gloucestershire Local Plan Policies, Sites and Places Plan (2017), which seeks that development would not prejudice the amenities of neighbours and that does not create unacceptable living conditions of nearby properties in terms of an overbearing and dominant impact.
Section 06
Conclusion and Recommendation
Based on the above, and having regard to all matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.
Section 07
Inspector’s Decision
I have considered all the submitted evidence and the Appeal Planning Officer’s report and on that basis the appeal is 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 859No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 22 December 2021Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 14 September 2021 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3278753
- Application reference
- P21/02615/F
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- South Gloucestershire Council
- Planning authority code
- E06000025
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
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 11 July 2021
- Valid date
- 11 July 2021
- Start date
- 21 July 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 4 June 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 22 December 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
- 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
- Horizon
- Dataset status
- Current release
- Catalogue record ID
- 8101
- 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