Appeal 3316513
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
6 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
to demolish an existing garage and re-build a larger re- sited garage.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issues are the effect on the character and appearance of the site and area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appellant’s home is a modest semi-detached dwelling with a long rear garden. It is proposed to demolish an existing garage building within this garden and to construct a much larger structure to serve as a garage, which would include a workshop.
Although the proposed garage would be a simple form, it would be unduly high, overly deep and would span the width of the appellant’s garden. Whilst the footprint of the building would be proportionate to the size of the garden, it would be significantly larger than the appellant’s home. As such, the garage would not appear subservient, or be incidental, to the main dwelling.
The overall bulk and mass of the structure would be at odds with the appellant’s home, neighbouring properties and other outbuildings in the vicinity. Whilst the garage would not be visible within the streetscene, it would appear overly prominent when viewed from other rear gardens in the locality. Taking all of the above into account, the garage would be an incongruous structure which would unduly harm the character and appearance of the appeal site and the area.
The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies PSP1 and PSP38 of the South Gloucestershire Local Plan: Policies, Sites and Places Plan (2017), Policy CS1 of the South Gloucestershire Local Plan: [name] 2006-2027 (2013) the [name] and [name] (2021) and the National Planning Policy Framework which, taken together, seek to secure high quality development which respects the context of the site and area.
Section 05
Other matters
I recognise that the appellant would like the building in association with his vintage car hobby. I also note that no neighbours have raised concerns regarding the proposal. However, neither of these matters outweigh my conclusions on the main issue.
Section 06
Conclusion
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 301No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 9 August 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 27 July 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3316513
- Application reference
- P22/05704/HH
- 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
- 0.035 hectares
- Floor space
- 82 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 February 2023
- Valid date
- 11 February 2023
- Start date
- 23 May 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 21 November 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 9 August 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
- 36839
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:27
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21