Appeal 3297182
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
construction of upper storey to existing single storey dwelling.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is whether the proposal is permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA of the GPDO.
Section 04
Procedural Matter
In the interests of clarity, the description of development in the banner heading above has been taken from the Council’s decision notice. The appeal has been considered accordingly.
Section 05
Reasons
[name].1. (h) under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA of the GPDO is clear that development is not permitted where the floor to ceiling height of any additional storey, measured internally, would exceed the lower of (i) three metres or (ii) the floor to ceiling height, measured internally, of any storey of the principal part of the existing dwellinghouse.
Notwithstanding the Council’s measurements, which are slightly different compared to the appellant’s, it is not disputed that the upper ceiling height would be greater than the lower ceiling height of the dwelling. This is shown on the cross-sectional drawing provided. Consequently, the development is not permitted under the GPDO.
Whilst the appellant suggests the measurements can be rectified, it is not for me to consider fundamental changes to the proposal under the appeal. For example, there is no evidence that it would be appropriate for changes of this nature to be secured by condition and that there is specific authority for doing so under this part of the GPDO1.
Consequently, the only reasonable conclusion based on the evidence in front of me is that such changes would need to come forward under a fresh application submitted to the Council.
Section 06
Other Matters
Given my finding on the main issue in relation to whether the proposal is permitted development, it has not been necessary to make a finding on matters of prior approval pursuant to the Council’s second reason for refusal2, as this would make no difference to the outcome of the appeal.
Section 07
Conclusion
For the reasons given above, the development is not permitted under the GPDO, and 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 415No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 12 December 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 24 November 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3297182
- Application reference
- PL/2021/11842
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Wiltshire Council
- Planning authority code
- E06000054
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
- 3. Refused prior approval of permitted development rights
- 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
- 84 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
- 18 April 2022
- Valid date
- 15 June 2022
- Start date
- 12 October 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 22 February 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 12 December 2022
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
- 24981
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:26
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21