Skip to main content
Official casework recordAllowedCurrent release

Appeal 3348143

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

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

the erection of a front porch.

  1. Section 02

    Decision

    The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for the erection of a front porch at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P24/00470/HH, subject to the following conditions:

    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: the location plan; [name] 2409/01; /02 and /04.

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

  2. Section 03

    Main Issue

    This is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and its surroundings.

  3. Section 04

    Reasons

    The appeal property is a semi-detached dwelling set in a short cul-de-sac leading from Queensway. Similar semi-detached properties front both sides of the cul-de-sac, but a terrace is evident at its head. The appeal property is the first on the right as one enters [address], but its front elevation is screened on entering the cul-de-sac by a pair of recently erected dwellings, known as 7a & &b Queensway. The pair has been built extremely close to the appeal property’s side elevation, and the southernmost dwelling of the pair projects forward of the appeal property’s front elevation.

    The intention is to build the porch so that it aligns with and be set alongside that part of the newly constructed dwelling that projects forward of the appeal property’s front elevation. The porch would thus be effectively screened in views from Queensway. It would, however, be seen from points within the cul-de-sac.

    The Council refer to the guidance and advice on front extensions provided in its SPG1, and considers that the proposal would conflict with elements of that guidance resulting in a structure of a bulky and incongruous appearance harming the appearance of the host property and the local scene.

    I share the view that the porch would be larger than is normally the case, but that does not render it disproportionate. It is reasonably well-designed with a pitched roof and would be built in materials matching the host property. Its scale and size closely resemble those of another front extension built virtually opposite the site at [address], and another attached to part of the terrace at the end of the cul-de-sac. It would not therefore prove an uncharacteristic form of development in this small cul-de-sac. The appeal property’s front garden is given over to car parking, being screened on both sides by timber fencing. In view of the fencing and because of the screening afforded by new development the visual effects of the development would be limited.

    In conclusion, I find the proposed development would sit appropriately in its visual context without harming the character and appearance of the host property or its surroundings. [name] find that no conflict arises with those provisions of Policy CS1 of the South Gloucestershire Local Plan Core Strategy and Policy PSP38 of the South Gloucestershire Local Plan Policies, Sites and Places Plan directed to achieving good quality design and maintaining local distinctiveness.

  4. Section 05

    Conditions

    As suggested by the Council conditions shall be imposed to ensure, in the interests of certainty, that the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans, and to ensure matching materials in the interests of amenity.

  5. Section 06

    Other matters

    All other matters raised have been taken into account, but no other matter is of such significance as to outweigh those considerations that led to my conclusions.

    Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

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 2949No official casework-database value to compare
    Extracted decision date · page 1
    3 January 2025Matches the official casework database
    Extracted site visit dates
    18 December 2024 (page 1)

Reference and authority

Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.

Case reference
3348143
Application reference
P24/00470/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
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
Not recorded
Number of residences
0
Site in Green Belt
No
Agricultural holding
Not recorded
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
15 July 2024
Valid date
15 July 2024
Start date
21 August 2024
Planning authority decision date
23 April 2024
Appeal decision date
3 January 2025

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
62363
First seen
20 August 2026 at 14:25
Last seen
20 August 2026 at 16:28
Removed from release
Not recorded
Record created
20 August 2026 at 14:25
Record updated
24 August 2026 at 16:21