Skip to main content
Official casework recordAllowedCurrent release

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 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

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.

  1. 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.

  2. Section 03

    Procedural Matter

    The appeal proposal has already been constructed. Therefore, this appeal is being determined retrospectively.

  3. 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).

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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