Appeal 3280413
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
5 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 single storey extension.
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 area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property is a detached three storey dwelling with a detached double garage situated to the side. The property makes up part of a modern residential estate which contains a variety of different house types including detached, semi-detached and terraced properties, typically with pitched or hipped roofs and a modest amount of amenity space to the front.
The proposed side extension would infill the gap between the dwelling and the detached double garage resulting in the two formerly detached buildings being connected, creating a ‘terracing effect’. [name] acknowledge that there are terraced properties in the locality including adjacent to the appeal site itself, these of more uniform appearance whereas the proposed extension would not harmonise with or sit comfortably between the two existing structures.
By virtue of its design and appearance I find that the proposed extension would sit uncomfortably between the host dwelling and garage. In particular I find that due to the flat roof and the eaves of the extension being higher than the eaves of the garage, when viewed from [address] the development would appear an incongruous addition which would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area.
Additionally whilst there are a variety of different house types in the locality these are commonly characterised by relatively steeply pitched roofs. The proposal would introduce a flat roofed side extension with glazed lantern linking the existing dwelling to the garage which would appear out of keeping and at odds with the local character.
I note that the appellant has referenced planning permissions that have been granted for extensions to other properties in the area, however I do not have the details of those specific permissions before me. In any event during my site visit I did not witness any extensions in the locality that were directly comparable to this appeal or that would lead me to consider that the proposed development is acceptable.
I therefore conclude that the development would harm the character and appearance of the area and conflict with Policy SDC1 of the Rugby Borough Council Local Plan which, amongst other things seeks to ensure developments are of a scale and design that responds to the character of the area in which they are situated.
Section 05
Conclusion
The proposal would conflict with the development plan and there are no material considerations which would outweigh this finding. For the reasons given above the appeal is therefore 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 2279No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 25 November 2021Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 16 November 2021 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3280413
- Application reference
- R21/0287
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Rugby Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000220
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
- Not recorded
- 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
- 6 August 2021
- Valid date
- 25 August 2021
- Start date
- 1 October 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 14 May 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 25 November 2021
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
- 6608
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:25
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21