Appeal 3327080
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
[name] into family/play room and construct a replacement detached garage with drive access.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main issue
The decision turns on the likely effect of the proposed single garage at No. [site address] on the [site address] street scene.
Section 04
Appeal property and proposal
No. [site address] is a detached 2 storey dwelling in a short cul-de-sac off [site address] , B4008. The narrow gable frontage of No. 8 with its integral single garage is set back some 35m from [site address] . The land attached to No. 8, however, extends in a narrow strip alongside No. 313 [site address] , widening to the rear edge of the B4008 footway.
The use of the garage within the dwelling at No. 8 would be changed to become part of the living accommodation of the house. The garage facility would be replaced by the construction of a detached single car structure built on the grassed space close to the southern corner of the junction of [address] and [site address] .
Section 05
Considerations
As the Council said, the conversion of the integrated garage into a family room would produce a different appearance to the other dwellings in the Close. I agree with them, however, that the conversion works, which would include a new bay window, would cause no harm to the street scene. Indeed, it may be an improvement.
The pitched roof garage to be accessed from [address] would be located on the unoccupied grassed land, part of the land attached to No. 8, close to the corner with [site address] . The new garage building would be 4.6m wide, 6.1m long. The ridge would be 4.7m high, the eaves 2.35m high.
Whilst the utility of the new garage would be a benefit to the house at No. 8, I consider that it would appear unduly and unacceptably prominent in the immediate [site address] scene. It would be an incongruously isolated structure, not obviously associated with the house at No. 8. The design of proposed building is utilitarian, its tall pitched roof with a ridge line running across its width adding to an ill-fitting look in its surroundings. The blank western elevation facing onto [site address] forward of No. 311 [site address] and well in front of housing to the south of the junction with [address] would add to its inharmonious appearance.
As the Appellants said, there is a considerable variation in the layout and design of housing properties along this part of [site address] . That adds interest to the street scene. It does not suggest acceptance of what would be an intrusive and poorly designed structure almost adjoining the rear edge of the [site address] eastern side footway. I can understand the Appellants’ wish to add to their accommodation. But it should not be at the cost of material harm to the appearance of the [site address] /[address] junction area.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, 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 19331No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 27 November 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 16 November 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3327080
- Application reference
- 23/00245/FUL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Gloucester City Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000081
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
- 22 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
- 1 August 2023
- Valid date
- 10 August 2023
- Start date
- 20 October 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 18 May 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 27 November 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
- 42631
- 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