Appeal 3333788
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
loft conversion with concealed roof terrace.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the building and surrounding area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site relates to an end property in a terrace of 8 houses, next to an entrance to Victoria Park. Its rear garden runs along the side of the park up to the end of [address] which continues along the edge of the park. Consequently, the rear of the appeal site and other houses within the terrace are visible from the end of [address] and from within Victoria Park.
The appeal property is significantly larger than other houses within the terrace. It sits slightly forward and is wider with a side, rather than front, entrance. The parapet wall at the front is higher than on other houses and the rear of the property extends further back than the rest of the terrace. All the houses within the terrace have butterfly roofs which, although hidden by parapet walls from the street, are visible from the park and thus contribute to the character and appearance of the terrace and wider area. The roof of the appeal property particularly stands out because of its size and prominent location.
The proposed development would replace the butterfly roof with a mainly flat roof, sloped at the side and front, behind a raised parapet wall. The butterfly roof would thus be infilled and squared off. A roof terrace to the side and rear would result in the roof extension sitting back from the wall such that views of it would be limited. Nonetheless, the higher parapet wall would lead to the building dominating the end of the terrace which would be made more apparent by the loss of the butterfly roof, which not only reflects the design of the wider terrace but also breaks up the mass of the host property. The result would be a more visually intrusive building out of keeping with the terrace of which it is part, harming both the character and appearance of the appeal property and wider area. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policy BCS21 of the Bristol Local Plan, [name] (2011) and Policies DM26, DM27, and DM30 of the Bristol Local Plan Site Allocations and Development Management Policies (2014) which require high quality design that reinforces local distinctiveness.
Section 05
Other Matters
I note that the appellant has submitted a Lawful Development Certificate application to infill the butterfly roof. However, that is a matter for the Council to determine and as such I accord it little weight.
I have had regard to concerns raised regarding privacy and the historic significance of the terrace. However, as I am dismissing the appeal on the main issues for the reasons given above, I have not pursued these matters further.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be 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 128No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted site visit dates
- 20 February 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3333788
- Application reference
- 22/05738/H
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Bristol City Council
- Planning authority code
- E06000023
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
- 33 m²
- Number of residences
- 1
- 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
- 23 November 2023
- Valid date
- 28 November 2023
- Start date
- 17 January 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 1 September 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 4 March 2024
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
- 47563
- 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