Appeal 3335783
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
extension in height of garage.
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 surrounding area.
Section 04
Reasons
Woodmancote is part of a housing estate comprising groups of mainly terraced houses which face in towards open spaces laid to lawn with some mature trees which give the estate an open green character. Pedestrian access is via a network of tarmac footways which link the open spaces. They connect to the road system which predominantly services the rear of houses providing access to garages, off road parking and some roadside parking.
The streetscape along these roads generally comprises the rear view of houses. It is less attractive and more varied than that of the open areas and house frontages described above. Nonetheless, there are common features which contribute to its character and appearance. Rear boundary walls and fences of a similar height abut the footway. Garages are generally set back from it in pairs sharing the same design, with off road access in front of them which provide additional parking spaces. The common rear boundary line, recessed parking areas, and similarly designed garages provide an element of uniformity to the street scene.
The garage subject of the appeal is one of a pair but is wider than its adjoining neighbour. They therefore lack the symmetry that most other pairs of garages share. The proposal to replace the existing flat roof with a sloping roof which would be substantially higher at the front would draw attention to the difference between it and its adjoining neighbour. It would appear dominant and out of keeping with other garages nearby harming both the appearance of the building and wider area and therefore conflict with Policy CS1 of the [site address] Local Plan: [name] (2013), Policy PSP1 of the [site address] Local Plan: Policies, Sites and Places Plan (2017) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2023) which require high quality design that enhances the character of the area.
Section 05
Other Matters
The appellant has drawn my attention to the garage opposite the appeal site. It differs in design and layout to its adjoining neighbour and most other garages within the estate, being wider and set at an angle with its flank wall along the pavement edge. However, because it is on the corner of a road junction its angled appearance and side wall does not look out of place. Furthermore, it is only slightly higher than its neighbour, which would not be the case with the proposed development which would be more visually dominant and intrusive because of its significantly greater height. It is not therefore comparable to the proposed development.
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
- 3335783
- Application reference
- P23/02288/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
- Not recorded
- Floor space
- Not recorded
- 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
- 20 December 2023
- Valid date
- 20 December 2023
- Start date
- 18 January 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 27 October 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
- No
- 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
- 47570
- 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