Appeal 3368537
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
4 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
a double and single storey extension to the rear.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for a double and single storey extension to the rear at [site address] , Bristol in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref. 25/10408/H and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions.
The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this Decision;
The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building;
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with a schedule of approved plans in [name]. [name]-858 to be first agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions for adjoining occupiers as regards outlook and light.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal dwelling is a semi-detached dwelling paired with No. 38 on its north easterly boundary. The appeal scheme proposes an extension to a depth of 3.5m with the part of the building adjoining No. 38 of single storey height and the remainder two storey. The Council’s objection is that the proposal conflicts with its SPD2: ‘A Guide for [address] Alterations and Extensions’ in that the single storey extension would fail the ‘45-degree rule’ taken from the centre of the nearest ground floor habitable room window at No. 38, and that the depth of the two-storey element would exceed the recommended maximum of 2.75m by 0.75m.
As part of my visit, I was given permission by the occupiers of No. 38 to assess the impact of the appeal proposal from their garden. From this vantage point I saw that the habitable room window is a full height pair of patio doors and that in terms of both enclosure and light, the existing aspect from these is significantly restricted by the boundary treatment comprising of decorative concrete panels and high-density planting of a substantial height from a point about 2m away from the dwelling.
In these circumstances I do not consider that the proposed single storey extension with its 2.4m high eaves and 3.7m ridge would make any material difference to the existing situation. The first-floor extension would be set almost 2.5m from the boundary with No. 38. And given the existing boundary treatment I similarly consider that the aforementioned 0.75m depth over and above that permitted in SPD2 would not materially increase the loss of outlook and light to the patio doors and rear garden of this neighbour.
I acknowledge that although the existing planting significantly reduces the outlook and light, it does not have the permanence of built form. However, the occupiers of No. 38 have made no objection to the appeal scheme and whilst not in itself determinative, the absence of this facilitates the potential for alternative proposals under the [name] procedure that as a fallback position would have a greater impact on No. 38 than the current scheme.
On balance, I find that the proposal would not have an unacceptably harmful effect on the outlook and light for the occupiers of No. 38 contrary to Policy BCS21 of the Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy 2011; Policies DM27 & DM30 of the Council’s Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Local Plan 2014, and paragraph 135f) of Government policy in the National Planning Policy Framework, revised December 2004.
I shall therefore allow the appeal. A condition requiring matching external materials will preserve visual amenity, whilst a condition stipulating that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans is necessary for the avoidance of doubt and is in the interests of proper planning. As regards the latter, there are some discrepancies between the plans’ numbering submitted in this appeal and the list in the [name] to which the Appeal Questionnaire refers. I have therefore amended the standard condition to require agreement between the Council and the appellant as to the correct plans before the commencement of the development.
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 204No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 28 August 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 11 August 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3368537
- Application reference
- 25/10408/H
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Bristol City Council
- Planning authority code
- E06000023
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
- 43 m²
- Number of residences
- 0
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- No
- Affects setting of a listed building
- No
- Historic building grant made
- Not recorded
- Relates to a conservation area
- Not recorded
- Flooding is an issue
- Not recorded
- Site within an AONB
- No
- 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
- 1 July 2025
- Valid date
- 1 July 2025
- Start date
- 4 July 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 30 May 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 28 August 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
- 75429
- 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