Skip to main content
Official casework recordDismissedCurrent release

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 works

One-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.

  1. Section 02

    Decision

    The appeal is dismissed.

  2. 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.

  3. Section 04

    Main Issue

    The main issue in this case is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.

  4. 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