Appeal 3283627
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
described as a proposed garage, brick walls and pitch roof to match the house.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
The site is located in a predominantly residential suburban area characterised by similarly designed dwellings. Whilst there is some variation in the building line, the prevailing character is that of dwellings set back from the road with gardens/parking to the front that remain free from built form. The set back combined with the lack of built development gives the area a feeling of spaciousness. The appeal site is a corner plot located at the junction between [address] and Kingsway.
The proposal would be at odds with the character of the area in that it would introduce built form to the front of the host dwelling eroding the spacious character of the area. It would be located adjacent to the pavement and visible from the surrounding roads and footpaths and would be a prominent addition to the front of the host dwelling harming the character and appearance of the area.
The appellant has put forward examples of similar developments within the local area. However, the particular circumstances of individual cases are likely to be different and direct parallels are not easily drawn. I have had regard to the appellant’s comments on this matter but this does not outweigh the harm I have identified.
For the reasons above, I conclude that the proposed development harms the character and appearance of the area contrary to the Warwick District Local Plan 2011-2019 (2017) Policy BE1 and the guidance contained within the Warwick District Council Residential Design Guide (2018) which seek, amongst other things, to ensure that development harmonises with the existing settlement in terms of physical form and reinforces or enhances the established urban character of streets. The appeal scheme would also be contrary to paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework that seeks good design sympathetic to local character.
Section 05
Other Matters
The appellant has also noted the benefits of the scheme in terms of the provision of secure storage space and the reduction in vehicular movements. I also note the points raised that the appellant that a caravan could be sited in this location. I recognise the points raised, nevertheless, those are essentially personal benefits and impacts, and my decision focusses on the public acceptability of the scheme. As such, these do not outweigh the harm identified above.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the above reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole, the approach of the Framework and all other relevant consideration, 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 568No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 1 March 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 5 January 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3283627
- Application reference
- W/21/0543
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Warwick District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000222
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
- 22 m²
- 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
- 24 September 2021
- Valid date
- 24 September 2021
- Start date
- 19 October 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 21 September 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 1 March 2022
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
- 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
- Horizon
- Dataset status
- Current release
- Catalogue record ID
- 11446
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:26
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21