Appeal 3337330
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
7 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
single storey extension to rear.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for single storey extension to rear at [site address] , Warwickshire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 039834, dated 9 September 2023, and the plans submitted with it.
Section 03
Procedural Matter
The appeal proposal has already been constructed. Therefore, this appeal is being determined retrospectively.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the development on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers of [address] (No 14).
Section 05
Reasons
Planning permission was granted under application reference 039576 for a 3.9m deep single storey extension which had already been constructed. However, at some 4.3m deep, the development is larger than indicated in the approved scheme. The appeal application was submitted to regularise the situation.
The Council’s Sustainable Design and [name] (the SPD) sets out guidance for house extensions, including measures to prevent harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. These can be applied flexibly, depending on matters including on-site circumstances. No 14 is the attached neighbouring bungalow which is not extended. There would be a breach of the Council’s 60-degree line in respect of the only window which serves its lounge. This could indicate an impact on the amount of natural light reaching this room. Furthermore, the extension projects more than the 4m beyond the rear wall of the neighbouring property which is permitted by the SPD.
However, the rears of the appeal property and No 14 face south. Considering also the size, scale, height and location of the extension, the more persuasive evidence indicates that the extension does not unacceptably affect natural daylight levels reaching No 14’s lounge or external patio area. There is no convincing evidence demonstrating that the depth of the extension shown on the appeal drawings, and as built, would have a materially greater overbearing or oppressive effect than the approved scheme. It remains unclear why the impact of the same, already constructed, extension was firstly assessed as being acceptable and was later considered harmful to the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers. Furthermore, a deeper extension could potentially be built here under the ‘[name] procedure. This is a planning consideration which supports the appeal proposal.
Although the proposed scheme does not satisfy each of the SPD criteria, strictly applied numerical guidance does not outweigh planning judgement based upon site-specific circumstances. In this appeal, there are material considerations which attract greater weight than the conflict with the SPD. Accordingly, the proposal should be determined in accordance with the development plan.
Overall, I conclude that the constructed extension does not cause undue harm to the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers at No 14. It is therefore consistent with the requirements of Policy BE3 of the Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Plan 2019 which, in summary, seeks to achieve a high-quality design which is appropriate to its context. Furthermore, the scheme broadly complies with the guidance set out in the National Planning Policy Framework and the National Design Guide.
Section 06
Other matters
The extension has been built up to the boundary with No 14 and the eaves and guttering of the extension overhang and are attached to the adjoining property. However, this unfortunate situation is the same as in the already approved scheme. But in any event, encroachment of the boundary is a private matter between the two neighbouring parties.
Section 07
Conclusion
For the reasons set out above and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is 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 322No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted site visit dates
- 20 April 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3337330
- Application reference
- 039834
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000219
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
- 26 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
- Allowed
- Decision category
- Allowed
- Received date
- 22 January 2024
- Valid date
- 4 February 2024
- Start date
- 21 February 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 2 November 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 10 May 2024
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
- 50873
- 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