Appeal 6001672
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
8 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
as described on the application form as ‘Proposed porch extension’.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the proposed porch extension at [site address] , [site address] , Birdlip, Gloucestershire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 25/01791/FUL, subject to the following conditions:
The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 25.881/1.02 [name] site layout; 25.881/1.03 [name] and proposed ground floor plans; 25.881/1.04 Existing and proposed elevations; and location plan.
No development above ground level shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved samples.
Section 03
Preliminary Matters
There is a discrepancy on the application form in respect of the appellant’s name. In their appeal statement, the appellant has confirmed that the applicant’s name on the application form was entered incorrectly. Accordingly, in the interests of accuracy, I have used the names given as part of the appeal documentation in the banner heading
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and surrounding area, including the Cotswolds National Landscape.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal site comprises a dwelling in a rural location, surrounded by a small number of other nearby properties. These neighbouring houses are of different sizes, ages and orientations to the road, often with porch entrances. [site address] is positioned sideways with its blank flank gable towards the road, which it is separated from by a grass verge. It is constructed from local Cotswold stone, both in its walls and roof.
The site lies within the Cotswolds National Landscape (CNL) where there is a statutory duty on decision-makers to seek to further the purposes of designation. The primary purpose in respect of the CNL is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the designated area
The site comprises a traditional house, typical of its countryside location, set within a large garden plot. The site contributes positively to the CNL through its overall form, the use of traditional materials and grouping with other sporadic buildings at the foot of this semi-open incline. The site also contains numerous mature trees and landscaping which positively contributes to the verdant, rural character within the immediately surrounding area and the qualities of the NL.
The proposed porch would be of a traditional design and would be positioned on the flank elevation that fronts the public highway. It would have timber elevations and a stone roof which would be highly visible on the approach from both directions along the road. Nonetheless, by reason of its relatively limited scale, its contained position towards the road and other built form, and the use of complimentary materials, the proposed development would form a modest addition to the appeal property
In making my decision, I have had regard to the Council’s Design Code in the Cotswold District Local Plan (2018) (the Local Plan). It requires porches not to detract from the character of a building, or obscure features of interest. This blank gable, despite being typical in some forms of rural vernacular, has been repeatedly altered over time with changes and scarring visible in the stonework. To this end, despite the porch being positioned, part over the original house and part over the rear extension, it would not detract from this elevation or its detailing. Accordingly, the proposed development would not harm the character or appearance of the host property or surrounding area, and would leave the natural beauty of the CNL unharmed
The Council has argued that timber is an inappropriate finish to the porch and should instead be clad in local Cotswold stone. However, I noted on site a mix of timber and stone used in the execution of porches on other nearby properties. Moreover, the roof of the appeal structure is proposed to be covered in Cotswold stone, and this will ensure a strong visual link is made with the appearance of the host property, thereby mitigating any harm with regards to the character of this house.
Overall, I conclude that the proposed development would not harm the character or appearance of the existing dwelling or surrounding area, including the CNL. As such, I find no conflict with Policies EN1, EN2, EN4 and EN5 of the Cotswold District Local Plan (2018). These policies, in summary, require development to be of a design quality that respects the character and distinctive appearance of the locality as well as conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the protected landscape.
Section 06
Other Matters
The land on which the porch is proposed, whilst owned by the applicant, has rights of access by the Highway Authority for maintenance as part of the highway. The Highways Authority requires the appellant to seek a stopping up order under Section 247 or Section 253 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. This was also a matter of concern for the Parish Council. However, the resolution of this matter does not weigh for or against the appeal and does not alter my conclusion on the main issue.
Section 07
Conditions
In addition to the standard time condition, I have imposed a condition requiring that the development is carried out following the approved plans, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of certainty.
A condition is necessary requiring samples of materials in order to integrate the appearance of the proposed porch with that of the original building, in the interests of character and appearance generally.
In imposing conditions, I have had regard to the tests within the National Planning Policy Framework, the Planning Practice Guidance, and relevant statute.
Section 08
Conclusion
For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be 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 5794No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 10 March 2026Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 24 February 2026 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 6001672
- Application reference
- 25/01791/FUL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Cotswold District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000079
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
- Not recorded
- Appeal reason
- refused
- Type detail
- Householder
- Jurisdiction
- No Jurisdiction Associated
- Link status
- Not recorded
Site and development
Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.
- Site area
- 0 hectares
- Floor space
- 983 m²
- Number of residences
- Not recorded
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- Not recorded
- Affects setting of a listed building
- Yes
- 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
- 12 November 2025
- Valid date
- 12 November 2025
- Start date
- 18 November 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 20 August 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 10 March 2026
Case administration
Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.
- Redetermined
- Not recorded
- Bespoke
- Not recorded
- 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
- Back Office
- Dataset status
- Current release
- Catalogue record ID
- 85653
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:29
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21