Appeal 3360130
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
7 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
described as a first-floor extension to property.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Appeal Procedure and Main Issue
The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. The main issue for which is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons for the Recommendation
The appeal building is one half of a pair of two storey semi detached dwellings in a residential area. It shares a lean to forward projecting single storey extension with its adjoined neighbour. Other pairs have been extended in similar ways and whilst there is some variety in roof form and size thereto, alterations have been limited to the ground floors as they face the street which, along with the local form, scale and materials palette, garners a strong sense of consistency to the street scene and general symmetry between each pair which contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area
The proposed forward facing gable would be positioned higher than the eaves of the existing property. It’s lack of subservience in this respect would be exacerbated by it being a largely anomalous first floor front projection in the street. It would have a highly noticeable unbalancing effect on the pair of buildings, unacceptably reducing the quality of the area’s sense of symmetry and consistency.
The proposal would therefore cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. In conflict with Policy A9 of the Gloucester City Plan (2023) and Policy SD4 of the Gloucester, Cheltenham and [name] (2017). Together, and amongst other matters, these set out that design should be in keeping with, respond positively to and respect the character and form of the original building and its surroundings. The appeal scheme would also conflict with the Gloucester City Council Home Extension Guide (2008) which suggests, amongst other things, that extensions should be of a style, form and design that is appropriate and respectful to the character of the locality and the appearance of the existing house.
Section 05
[name]
There would be benefits of having extra space in the property to accommodate for a family. However, these would be private and there is no compelling evidence to suggest the appeal scheme is the only means of achieving them. I would therefore only ascribe the matter limited weight.
Section 06
Conclusion and Recommendation
The proposal would conflict with the development plan and, having taken them into account, there are no material considerations that justify granting permission in light thereof. I therefore recommend the appeal is dismissed.
Section 07
Inspector’s Decision
I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis 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 1895No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 12 June 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 20 March 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3360130
- Application reference
- 24/00844/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
- 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
- 7 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
- 5 February 2025
- Valid date
- 5 February 2025
- Start date
- 11 February 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 19 December 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 12 June 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
- 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
- 71124
- 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