Appeal 6003118
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
6 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 side extension to provide additional living accommodation.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area.
Section 04
Reasons
The scheme proposes an addition to the side of an existing attached garage, to accommodate an internal stair, together with the addition of an extra storey above the garage. The existing attached garage is a subservient feature that sits comfortably as part of the property.
However, the addition of the extra width to the garage, coupled with the additional height, would result in a side appendage that would appear overly wide and out of proportion with the existing dwelling. It would have an uncomfortable and assertive appearance that fails to respect the scale of the property. As a result, it would appear as a discordant addition and incongruous within its context. The presence of an electricity substation to the front of the site would do little to screen the proposal from view and it would not therefore ameliorate its impact. Moreover, that the proposals would extend into and reduce a gap between existing properties, does not result in the development of an overly wide extension to the property being acceptable.
I note that the Council raise some concern in respect of the proposed roof form of the extension, however given the positioning of the existing garage and the set back from the highway, I consider that this is not an objectionable element of the scheme. Nonetheless, this does not diminish the harm I identify in respect of the proposal’s width.
Given the localised effect that the proposal would have, while I find there would be no harm to character, the scheme would however result in harm to the appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. Thus, it conflicts with policy CS1 of the [site address] Local Plan: [name] (adopted December 2013), as well as policy PSP38 of the [site address] Local Plan: Policies, Sites and Places Plan (adopted November 2017). Together, and amongst other things these seek to ensure that development respects the distinctiveness of a site and that extensions respect scale and proportion.
Section 05
Other Matters
I note that it has been suggested by the appellant that the extension would provide for potential additional living space and a separate entrance for a live-in carer, should this be required. While this is noted, it is not suggested that this is a necessity at this time or that it will be required in the future. In exercising my function on behalf of a public authority, I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) contained in the Equality Act 2010. However, having due regard to this, and the need to eliminate discrimination and promote equality, in this case this matter is insufficient to outweigh the harm that I have identified.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the reasons given above the appeal should be 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 192No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 19 March 2026Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 17 February 2026 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 6003118
- Application reference
- P25/02424/HH
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- South Gloucestershire Council
- Planning authority code
- E06000025
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
- 204 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
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 24 December 2025
- Valid date
- 24 December 2025
- Start date
- 7 January 2026
- Planning authority decision date
- 9 December 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 19 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
- 86192
- 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