Oadby and Wigston Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over area character and appearance in Oadby and Wigston?
See the selected local conclusions on area character and appearance, including where proposals were found harmful or not harmful.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 31 of 36
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 7
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 24
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 31
- of 31 matched records
AI-assisted. Cited sources and wording were checked before publication. Based on 5 source-linked examples shown below. Review method and limits.
Planning Data area point: Oadby and Wigston LPA (52.587157, −1.093393). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Oadby and Wigston Borough Council appeal findings
Dormers, extensions and canopies in local character findings
The selected examples include allowed and dismissed appeals, but their extracts mostly give conclusions rather than the design analysis behind them.
Counted against appeals
Roof changes and canopies found harmful
Box dormer and streetscene harm
The Inspector concluded that the box-dormer proposal would harm the host dwelling and wider streetscene. The extract does not give the design analysis.
Loft conversion and canopy harm
The Inspector concluded that a loft conversion and a free-standing car-protection canopy would each harm area character and appearance. Neither extract identifies the feature causing harm.
Helped or needed
Extensions found not harmful
Single-storey side extension
The Inspector concluded that the single-storey side extension would not cause significant harm to local character and appearance. The extract gives no further design explanation.
Two-storey side and rear extension
The Inspector concluded that the two-storey side and rear extension would not harm the area’s character and appearance. The extract does not identify which features helped.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify harm to your dwelling, streetscene or wider area?
- Does it name the roof, extension or canopy feature causing that harm?
- Does it explain which part of your design needs changing?
Most selected Oadby and Wigston extracts give conclusions rather than design analysis, so they cannot explain why these results differed. These decisions do not predict another result.
Appeal evidence examples
Compare allowed and dismissed appeal reasoning
Each example separates the development, the Inspector-stated issue that selected it, and the reasoning from the decision. Compare the facts as well as the outcome: these examples do not predict how a different proposal would be decided.
Allowed appeal examples
2 examples
23 May 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the erection of a single storey side extension to form kitchen extension, new utility room and wc.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the local area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
On the main issue, I conclude that the proposed development would not cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the local area. As such, it does not conflict with Policies 1, 6 and 44 of The Borough of Oadby and Wigston Local Plan 2011–2031 or the Council’s SPD. These policies and guidance aim to ensure that new development achieves a high standard of design, respects local character and is sympathetic to and in keeping with their surroundings. It also adheres to the National Planning Policy Framework, which also states that development should be sympathetic to local character.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
22 July 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
two storey side and rear extension, with associated landscaping works.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Overall, the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore be in accordance with Policies 6 and 44 of the Oadby and Wigston Local Plan 2011. Together and amongst other factors, these policies state that new development shall be of the highest standard of design and be in keeping with the area in which it is set.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
18 December 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
internal alterations to ground and first floor with loft conversion.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude, the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. In that regard, it would conflict with Policies 6 and 44 of the Borough of Oadby and Wigston Local Plan (2019), which require the highest standards of design, that development respects local character and is in keeping with the area in which it is situated. For the same reasons, the proposal would also fail to accord with the design guidance in the SPD and the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework to secure well-designed places.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
30 March 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the construction of proposed loft conversion; one rooflight at front; wraparound box dormer extension at rear and side; alterations to house (Class C3).
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the above reasons the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the wider streetscene contrary to Policy 6 of the Borough of Oadby and Wigston Local Plan 2011-2031 (2019) which, amongst other matters, seeks the highest standard of design which respect the existing local character of an area and that development is sympathetic to its surroundings. It would also be at odds with the guidance contained in the Residential Supplementary Planning Document (2019) which seeks to ensure that loft conversions/dormer windows are not an over-dominant feature within the roof.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
28 February 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a free standing car protection canopy.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Taking all of the above into account, I find that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to Policies 6 and 44 of the Oadby and Wigston Local Plan (2019); and to the Council’s Residential Development Supplementary Planning Document (2019), which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2