Appeal 3299252
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 ‘resubmission of a new single storey extension in lieu of the existing conservatory and second storey build over existing single storey rear kitchen and playroom following Planning Application Refusal Ref No: 21/00558/FUL’.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the resubmission of a new single storey extension in lieu of the existing conservatory and second storey build over existing single storey rear kitchen and playroom following Planning Application Refusal Ref No: 21/00558/FUL at [site address] , Wellesbourne [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 21/03772/FUL, dated 29 November 2021, subject to the following conditions:
The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: P20.159.PA01 and P20.159.PA02 [name].
The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be as indicated on the submitted application form and plans. The external brickwork and mortar shall match that of the existing dwelling.
Prior to the first use of the development hereby permitted, the sustainability measures set out within the supporting ‘[name] submitted to the Council on 8 March 2022 as part of the application shall be incorporated into the development. The approved sustainability measures shall be retained and maintained for the lifetime of the development.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Wellesbourne Conservation Area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property is an attractive 2 storey detached brick and tile cottage of a traditional design. It is orientated at [address], with the side gable abutting the edge of the carriageway. The site is enclosed by residential development to both sides and the rear.
The property lies within the Wellesbourne Conservation Area (the CA), on its southern edge, at the entrance to the CA from [address]. Much of the CA contains attractive historic buildings, including No 7, which is of some significance by virtue of its age and position. By contrast, the development adjoining the appeal site, includes predominantly modern development of varying architectural styles. The orientation and positioning of the dwelling, close to the road, means it occupies a prominent position on the approach into the CA. As a result of this, together with the age of the property and its attractive appearance it thereby makes a positive contribution to the pleasant character of the area and significance of the CA.
The main part of the existing cottage is symmetrical in appearance, with single storey elements to the side and rear elevations which present as visually subservient components to the host dwelling. The proposed first-floor extension would have a roof pitch that matches the main dwelling, and lower eaves and ridge height. By virtue of its height, scale and design, the proposed first-floor extension would appear as a visually subservient and congruous addition to the dwelling. Furthermore, the inclusion of a glazed link would serve to reduce the overall bulk of the extension and would ensure that it would be clearly read as a later addition. As a result of the separation, the proposed extension would not disrupt the symmetry of the main part of the dwelling or detract from the traditional character of the original building.
The extension would include a dormer window of a scale and design which would reflect those in the main dwelling. Whilst the siting of the proposed dormer window would be at odds with the established pattern of the position of the existing dormers in the main dwelling, this arrangement reflects the design of the extension and would not detract from the overall appearance of the development.
The proposed single storey front extension, whilst greater in size than the existing conservatory and of a solid construction, would be of a traditional pitched roof design and subservient in scale to and off set from the front of the main part of the dwelling. As such, the proposed single storey extension would be a sympathetic addition to the existing dwelling.
The development is therefore acceptable in design terms for the host dwelling. Furthermore, as a consequence of the orientation and siting of the dwelling, the proposed extensions, whilst visible from the highway, are set back from the front boundary of the property. This, together with the subservient scale and design of the extensions, means that the appeal proposals would not appear as unduly dominant features when viewed from [address]. Therefore, they would not diminish the pleasant character of the area.
In light of the above, I find that the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the CA as a designated heritage asset. In that regard it would not conflict with [name].5, CS.8, CS.9 and CS.20 of the [name] 2011-2031 (CS). Amongst other things, these policies aim to ensure development is of high quality design that respects the historic environment and landscape character. The proposals would also accord with Policies WW3 and WW9 of the Wellesbourne and Walton Neighbourhood Plan 2016-2031 which require proposals that affect heritage assets to accord with CS Policy C.8 and to achieve design excellence.
Section 05
Conditions
I have imposed the standard conditions relating to the commencement of development and specifying the relevant plans in order to provide certainty, as well as a condition to require the materials to be used to match those in the existing building. The Council have suggested a condition to secure the incorporation of sustainability measures, details of which were submitted as part of the application in accordance with relevant policies. I have amended the wording in accordance with national Planning Practice Guidance.
Section 06
Conclusion
I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.
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 3016No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 11 August 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 12 July 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3299252
- Application reference
- 21/03772/FUL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Stratford-on-Avon District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000221
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
- 38 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
- Yes
- 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
- Allowed
- Decision category
- Allowed
- Received date
- 19 May 2022
- Valid date
- 19 May 2022
- Start date
- 26 May 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 23 March 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 11 August 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
- 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
- 19124
- 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