Appeal 3340211
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
the erection of new bin store.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of new bin store at [site address] , Barford, Warwickshire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/23/1488, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:
The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plan: Existing & [name] & Elevations – [name]: 4132-03B.
The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.
Prior to its installation, details of the door, including materials, finish and detailed design, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Section 03
[name]
The main issues are whether the proposed development would preserve the setting of the [name] listed building, [name]; and whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Barford Conservation Area.
Section 04
Reasons
[name] is an attractive [name] listed 17th century timber framed barn which has been converted to a dwelling. It is 2 storey, with a pitched tiled roof and includes in part, brick infill panels, and a brick gable with a modern chimney stack to the flank elevation. From the evidence before me, the special interest and significance of the listed building, insofar as relevant to this proposal, are largely derived from its architectural and historic interest. The building is experienced within the setting of the surrounding residential development, including car parking, a pitched roof garage and flat roof garage block off set from the rear of the property, with an intervening brick boundary wall containing a gated opening which provides access to the rear garden.
The site is located within the Barford Conservation Area (the CA). The significance of the CA is mainly derived from the quality and mixture of historic buildings and their relationship to each other and the surrounding streets. The listed building occupies a prominent corner plot, whereby both the front and side elevations of the building are visible from [address]. As such, it contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area and the significance of the CA as a heritage asset.
The appeal proposal would see the erection of a bin store, formed by the construction of 2 sections of brick wall, which alongside the existing garden wall and side elevation of the garage would create an enclosed area. It would be located on an existing area of hardstanding to the rear of the listed building and accessed by a pedestrian door to the front wall and from the rear garden of the property through an existing opening in the boundary wall.
The bin store would be of a simple form, designed to meet the functional requirements of the appellant. It is modest in scale, lower in height and not dissimilar in appearance to the existing boundary wall that runs between the house and garage. Although it would be seen in the same context as the listed building, due to its position, set back from the side gable, and overall scale, the structure would not interfere with views of the side elevation of the host dwelling, nor would it significantly encroach into views of the frontage of the listed building.
Consequently, the proposed bin store would not appear as a visually disruptive or unduly dominant feature within the setting of the listed building. It would therefore preserve the special architectural and historic interest of the listed building and the contribution that its setting makes to its significance.
Notwithstanding its position and visibility from some parts of [address], the bin store would be viewed against the backdrop of the existing garage and boundary wall. Moreover, by virtue of its design, scale and height, the proposal would not appear as a visually intrusive or incongruous feature in the street scape. Considering these factors, and given the context of the appeal property, the bin store would not appear at odds with the prevailing character of the area. In that regard it would not detract from the character and appearance of the CA.
For the reasons given above, the proposed bin store would not harm the setting and significance of the listed building and would preserve the character and appearance of the CA and its significance as a heritage asset. It would therefore accord with Policy HE1 of the Warwick District Local Plan 2011-2029 adopted 2017, which sets out that development will not be permitted where it will adversely affect the setting of a listed building, and Policy B6 of the Barford Neighbourhood Plan 2014 – 2029, which expects all new development within the Conservation Area and/or within the setting of a listed building to preserve and wherever possible enhance the positive attributes of the heritage asset. It would also accord with the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) in respect of the historic environment.
Section 05
Conditions
In addition to the standard condition in relation to the time period for the implementation of the permission, a condition specifying the approved plans is necessary to provide certainty. I have not imposed a condition to require samples of the external materials to be submitted as suggested by the Council, but rather a condition to require the materials to be used to match those in the existing building, which is necessary and would provide adequate assurance regarding the appearance of the development and in the interests of the heritage assets. A condition to require details of the door is necessary, in the interests of the character and appearance of the area and the setting of the listed building. I have excluded the reference to windows, eaves, verges and rainwater goods from the Council’s suggested condition as these elements are not relevant to the appeal proposal.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, 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 4746No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 19 August 2024Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 14 August 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3340211
- Application reference
- W/23/1488
- 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
- 11 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
- Allowed
- Decision category
- Allowed
- Received date
- 7 March 2024
- Valid date
- 13 March 2024
- Start date
- 13 May 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 26 January 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 19 August 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
- 55841
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:28
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21