Appeal 3319778
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
8 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
the demolition of existing garage and erection of two storey side extension with associated external works and installation of new rooflight.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Appeal Procedure
The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.
Section 04
Main Issue
The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 05
Reasons for the Recommendation
The appeal site is set on a corner plot and comprises a two-storey semi-detached dwelling with an attached single-storey garage to the side. This pair and the adjoining pair are attached at the garages. The resulting group are built largely to the same simple design, although No 11 has a single-storey side extension in place of the garage. Nevertheless, the consistent design of the dwellings contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area.
The Warwick District Council Residential [name] 2018 (RDG) states, amongst other things, that side extensions should be set back from the front elevation, down from the ridge and be no more than two-thirds the width of the original property. The first floor would be set back from the front and have a ridge line lower than the main roof. However, the width would appear to be close to that of the existing house. As a result, the extension would not appear subservient, significantly exceeding the two-thirds limit set out in the RDG. The proposed extension would maintain a gap to the side boundary however, it would be out of proportion with, and thus fail to respect the consistency of the wider group.
The existing dwelling is somewhat narrow and an extension that is two-thirds the width of the house or less may not be sufficient to provide rooms that meet minimum space standards. However, it has not been demonstrated that the proposed width is the smallest possible to achieve the minimum space standards, or that the additional rooms could not be achieved in an alternative scheme that does not cause harm in regard to the main issue of the case.
For the reasons given, the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area, contrary to Policy BE1 of the Warwick District Local Plan 2017 and the guidance in the RDG, both of which seek for development to contribute positively to the character and quality of its environment and to respect surrounding buildings in terms of scale.
Section 06
[name]
The appellant’s desire to enlarge the building to provide more habitable space, since it is unclear if it could be done another way, would not be sufficient to make the above harm acceptable.
Section 07
Conclusion
There are no material considerations before me worthy of sufficient weight which would indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore recommend that the appeal be dismissed.
Section 08
Inspector’s Decision
I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis I dismiss the appeal.
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 1895No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 5 September 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 3 July 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3319778
- Application reference
- W/22/1845
- 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
- Unknown
- 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
- 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 April 2023
- Valid date
- 3 April 2023
- Start date
- 31 May 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 17 January 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 5 September 2023
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
- 38124
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:27
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21