Appeal 3294153
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 loft extension, alterations to the roof and new second floor access.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Procedural Matters
One of the Council’s reasons for refusal refers to the provision of car parking spaces. However, further to my site visit and on consideration of all of the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the proposal could be developed without harm to highway safety and there is no substantive evidence before me to the contrary. Consequently, the main issue in this respect of this appeal is that as set out below.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue in this case is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal property is a two-storey semi-detached dwelling located in a residential area. The dwelling is of brick and tile construction with timber and render decoration. It is set back from the road behind a driveway and has a garden to the rear.
[address] is situated within the [name] historic character area and the appeal property is recognised as part of a group of ten dwellings on [address] as a Locally Listed Building.
[address] has a distinctive character and is notable for the presence of matching pairs of semi-detached properties which, whilst modernised over the years, maintain strikingly attractive period features, including ornate brickwork, bays, rendering and timber decoration, along with matching gables, dormers and roofscapes. Dwellings share a build-line, set back from a tree-lined pavement behind short gardens and/or driveways. The overall effect is to provide a very strong and attractive sense of uniformity.
The proposed development would involve raising the ridge height of the roof to create living accommodation at second floor level. The proposal seeks to achieve this in a manner whereby the roof would slope upwards from the main ridge towards the rear, resulting in a tall gable effect facing to the rear of the property.
Whilst the design appears to seek to limit changes being seen from the front of the property, I find that the effect of the proposed development would be to lead the extended roof to appear as an unduly contrived and awkward addition.
The proposed roof would be seen to rise and extend to the rear in a manner entirely unlike any other roof along this part of [address]. The increased ridge height would be seen rising above the height of other dwellings and the odd side profile of the proposal would appear as a highly irregular and incongruous feature, especially when seen through the gap between Numbers 14 and [address]. 10.Consequently, I find that the proposed development would draw undue attention to itself as a visually incongruous feature. This would be to the detriment of the appearance of the appeal property itself, as well as to the surrounding area. 11.Whilst the appellant, in support of his case, draws my attention to the appearance of other dwellings I have found that the proposal would result in significant harm to the appeal property and its surroundings and this is not a factor outweighed by other forms of development elsewhere. 12.Taking the above into account, I find that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to Oadby and Wigston Local Plan (2019) Policies 1, 6 and 44; and to the Oadby and Wigston Residential Development Supplementary Planning Document (2019), which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character.
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 601No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 9 June 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 26 April 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3294153
- Application reference
- 21/00124/FUL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Oadby and Wigston Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000135
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
- 23 m²
- Number of residences
- 1
- 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
- 3 March 2022
- Valid date
- 3 March 2022
- Start date
- 17 March 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 9 December 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 9 June 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
- 16201
- 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