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 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
the erection of a front porch.
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.
Section 03
Main Issue
This is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and its surroundings.
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.
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.
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