Skip to main content
Official casework recordAllowedCurrent release

Appeal 3309720

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

9 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

described on the application form as, “Rear single storey extension, first floor extension and porch”.

  1. Section 02

    Decision

    The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for erection of rear single storey extension, first floor extension and porch at [site address] , Gloucestershire, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name].22/1337/HHOLD, dated 14 June 2022, and subject to the conditions set out in the attached schedule.

  2. Section 03

    [name]

    Differing to the description of development in the banner header above, the Council’s decision notice accurately describes the development as shown on the supporting plans as, “Erection of rear single storey extension, first floor extension and porch”. I have used this description in my consideration of the appeal and in my decision since it best describes the proposed development in precise and concise terms.

  3. Section 04

    Main Issue

    The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property.

  4. Section 05

    Reasons

    The appeal site comprises a former agricultural building, known as Tanyard, which has previously been converted into a dwelling, and the accessway, driveway, and garden, which surround Tanyard. In keeping with the traditional character of the semi-rural area that the site is located within, Tanyard is constructed of red brick and has a clay tiled roof.

    The appellants have calculated that the proposal would entail an approximately 27% increase in the footprint of Tanyard, and this figure has not been disputed by the Council. This total uplift in footprint would not be excessive, and much of the increase would be due to the proposed rear single storey extension, which would be significantly set-down from the ridge of the roof, thereby being subordinate to the central portion of Tanyard. Moreover, much of this element of the proposal would be composed of glazing, which would reduce its visual impact and which would broadly mirror and complement the long bank of windows which are present on the existing single storey projection with a glass frontage that faces into the garden.

    Furthermore, the proposed first floor element would not significantly augment the scale and massing of Tanyard, and it would seamlessly follow the existing building form of the central portion of Tanyard.

    [name] recognise that the proposed dormers and porch would add features associated with domestic use, the proportionate increase in scale and massing arising via the proposal as a whole, the discrete size of the proposed dormers, and the subordinate nature of the proposed rear single storey extension would all ensure that the traditional rural aesthetics of Tanyard would be preserved. Overall, I am satisfied that Tanyard would retain its character and appearance as a former agricultural building, and that its significance, including its attractive rustic charm which is in keeping with its semi-rural context, would be maintained by the proposal.

    I therefore find that the proposed development would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the host property. It would comply with criterion 2 of Policy HC8 of the Stroud District Local Plan (adopted 2015) (Local Plan) which provides that, amongst other things, permission will be granted for the extension of residential properties provided that the height, scale, form and design of the extension is in keeping with the scale and character of the original dwelling (taking into account any cumulative additions), and the site’s wider setting and location.

    The proposal would also comply with criterion 5 of Policy CP14 of the Local Plan which provides that, amongst other things, development will be supported where it achieves an appropriate design and appearance, which is respectful of the surroundings, including the local topography, built environment and heritage.

  5. Section 06

    Other Matters

    It is common ground between the main parties (including the Council’s Conservation Officer) that the proposal would not affect the setting or significance of the [site address] Conservation Area, or [address] (a [name] listed building), or any listed buildings further afield. I have no evidence before me that points to a different conclusion.

  6. Section 07

    Conditions

    I have had regard to the conditions suggested by the Council. I have considered them against the advice on conditions set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG).

    Conditions are necessary, in the interests of clarity and enforceability, setting out the timescale for the commencement of development and the approved plans respectively. A condition is necessary controlling external materials to secure an acceptable appearance for the development. A condition is also necessary restricting the days and hours of operation of construction machinery / plant and processes, and in relation to construction-related deliveries to and from the site, to safeguard the living conditions of nearby occupiers in terms of noise and disturbance.

    Although the Council has suggested text for informative notes, the PPG advises that informative notes do not carry any legal weight and cannot be used in lieu of planning conditions or a legal obligation to try and ensure adequate means of control for planning purposes1. Nevertheless, the appellants will be aware of the legislation surrounding roosting bats and public rights of way due to these matters being highlighted in Council’s suggested conditions document.

  7. Section 08

    Conclusion

    For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole, the approach in the Framework, and all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

  8. Section 09

    Conditions Schedule

    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: Location and Block Plan (21.051.01), [name] and Elevations (21.051.03) ([name]).

    The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

    Construction site machinery / plant shall be operated, processes shall be carried out, and construction-related deliveries shall be taken at or despatched from the site, only between 08:00hrs to 18:00hrs on Mondays to Fridays, between 08:00hrs to 13:00hrs on Saturdays, and not at any time on Sundays or on Bank or Public Holidays.

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 368No official casework-database value to compare
    Extracted decision date · page 1
    9 May 2023Matches the official casework database
    Extracted site visit dates
    7 March 2023 (page 1)

Reference and authority

Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.

Case reference
3309720
Application reference
S.22/1337/HHOLD
Lead case reference
Not recorded
Planning authority
Stroud District Council
Planning authority code
E07000082

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
Unknown
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
41 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
25 October 2022
Valid date
25 October 2022
Start date
19 January 2023
Planning authority decision date
28 September 2022
Appeal decision date
9 May 2023

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
32303
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