Appeal 3360743
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 side extension to form kitchen and dining area. Raising the existing ridge level by 1m to be able to convert the roofspace into living space and adding two dormer window to the front elevation.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Appeal Procedure
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.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 05
Reasons for the Recommendation
The appeal building is a modest detached bungalow set well back into its plot and facing the road. It has a gable roof and two forward facing pitched roof ground floor bay windows, flanking a centralised front door. Whilst there is significant variety to the street scene in terms of building type, design and scale, there is a pleasant and simple symmetry to the appeal building’s design which contributes positively to the street scene.
To some extent, this would be carried into the proposed design, specifically through the use of a pair of forward facing pitched roof dormers above and roughly in line with the ground floor windows and a narrower centralised one. That said, the balance would be upset by the sideways projection of the rear element of the extension. Whilst set back, it would appear awkward and unrelated to the host building through a much larger ground floor opening, its own dormer planted off centre therefrom and a lower eaves height as a result of a balcony. This would result in an asymmetrical design which would lack the coherent qualities of the existing, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area.
In this regard, the proposal would conflict with Policies HC8, ES12 and CP14 of the Stroud District Local Plan (2015). Together and amongst other things, these policies require the scale, form, layout and design of new development to be in keeping with the original dwelling.
Support for the scheme is noted, but it does not absolve me from making an assessment as to its effects in regard to the main issue. There would be benefits, such as views from the balcony and extra space for the family. These would however be mainly private. It is also unclear as to whether the appeal scheme is the sole means to achieve them. They would thus only be worthy of limited weight. Such that they would not be sufficient to outweigh the harm I have found.
Section 06
Conclusion and Recommendation
The proposal would conflict with the development plan and material considerations do not justify granting permission. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be 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
- 4 June 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 3 April 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3360743
- Application reference
- S.24/1809/HHOLD
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Stroud District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000082
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
- No
- Historic building grant made
- No
- Relates to a conservation area
- No
- Flooding is an issue
- No
- Site within an AONB
- No
- Site within an SSSI
- No
Decision and dates
The published outcome and every imported case date.
- Official decision
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 16 February 2025
- Valid date
- 19 February 2025
- Start date
- 24 February 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 20 December 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 4 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
- 70538
- 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