Stratford-on-Avon District Council appeal evidence
Refused over area character and appearance in Stratford-on-Avon?
See the selected conclusions on area character and appearance, including what helped allowed proposals.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 42 of 80
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 15
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 27
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 30
- of 42 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: Stratford-on-Avon LPA (52.178824, −1.622946). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Stratford-on-Avon District Council appeal findings
Stratford-on-Avon home changes and area character
The selected examples have a slightly different allowed-and-dismissed balance from the matched local set, and give conclusions rather than the analysis behind them.
Counted against appeals
Stratford-on-Avon extensions harming area character
First-floor extension harmed area character
A first-floor extension was concluded to materially harm the character and appearance of the local area.
Extensions did not harmonise
Extensions were found not to harmonise with the existing property and to harm the prevailing development pattern.
Garage and bedroom extension harmed area
An extension creating a larger garage and bedroom was concluded to harm the area’s character and appearance.
Helped or needed
Stratford-on-Avon carport and dormer character findings
Carport caused no identified harm
The proposed carport was concluded not to harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area.
Dormer effect no worse than roof rights
The dormer proposal’s effect was found no worse than a roof extension under permitted-development rights.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal say whether harm concerns your home, the area, or both?
- Does the refusal identify a development pattern your proposal would disrupt?
- Does it compare your proposal’s effect with permitted development?
The selected Stratford-on-Avon examples cover different home changes and mostly record conclusions, not the detailed reasoning. 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
26 July 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a carport.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons above, I consider that the proposed carport would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area. Consequently, there would be no conflict with [name].9 and CS.20 of the Stratford and [name] 2011-2031 (2016) which, amongst other things seeks a high standard of design which respects the local context and is of an appropriate scale to the existing dwelling.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
2 July 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the construction of first floor extension above garage, including one front dormer window and one rear dormer window.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and its surroundings.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude that the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and its surroundings would be no worse than that effected by the construction of the roof extension under PD rights. I also conclude that this is a case where the material considerations indicate to me that the provisions of the development plan policies as set out in the reason for refusal need not be strictly adhered to in respect of the principle of the extension. The proposed dormers are compliant with the relevant aspects of the development plan’s design policies, being CS.9 and CS.20 of the adopted [name] and policy BE5 of the Stratford Neighbourhood Plan. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds.
Paragraph 19 · Source page 4
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
25 July 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a two storey extension to form larger garage and bedroom.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Consequently, the proposed extension would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area and would therefore conflict with Policies CS9 and CS20 of the Stratford-on-Avon District Core Strategy 2011 to 2031, which seek to ensure local distinctiveness and high-quality design. The proposal is also contrary to Policy ENV3 of the [site address] Neighbourhood Development Plan 2016 to 2031, which requires development to respect local distinctiveness through excellent design.
Paragraph 6 · Source pages 1, 2
25 January 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
alterations and extensions to existing detached dwelling.
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 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Nevertheless, I conclude on the main issue that the proposed first floor extension would materially harm the character and appearance of the local area. As such, it conflicts with [name].9 and CS.20 of the [name] 2011 to 2031 and Policy BE5 of the [site address] Neighbourhood Development Plan 2011-2031. These policies aim to ensure that development achieves high quality design; reflects local character; and is appropriate in scale having regard to the site’s location. These policies support the guidance within the Council’s SPD and the [name] with which the proposal would also conflict. The appeal scheme is also at odds with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which states at paragraph 130 that developments should be sympathetic to local character and add to the overall quality of the area.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
22 March 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a ground floor rear dining room, breakfast room, utility, shower room and home office extensions. First floor pitched roofed en-suite bedroom extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Overall, I find that the proposal would fail to harmonise with the existing property and would harm the prevailing pattern of development and character of the area. It would therefore be contrary to [name].9 and CS.20 of the Stratford-on-Avon District Core Strategy 2011 to 2031, Policy BE5 of the [site address] Neighbourhood Plan 2011-2031 and the SPD. Together these require a high standard of design and for development to be sensitive to the setting, existing built form and neighbours, and to reflect the context and continue key design features. There would also be conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework with regard to high-quality design and being sympathetic to local character.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2