Skip to main content
Official casework recordAllowedCurrent release

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 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

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.

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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