Single-storey rear extension at Hereford Cottage Bull In The Oak Court Bosworth Road Bull In The Oak Cadeby Nuneaton

What was proposed

The application sought a single-storey rear extension measuring three metres deep and 3.2 metres wide, with a pitched roof and matching materials.

“This householder planning application seeks planning permission for a proposed single storey rear extension to the dwelling at Hereford Cottage, Bull in the Oak Court, Bosworth Road, Bull in the Oak, Cadeby. This application is a resubmission of the previously withdrawn application 25/01076/HOU. There are no material differences between the two schemes.”

“The proposed rear extension would be accessed from the property’s southern-most bedroom and would measure 3 metres in depth and 3.2 metres in width. The extension would feature a 3.5-metre-high dual pitched roof, which would include conservation rooflights on its northern and southern-facing roof slopes. The materials are proposed to match those of the host dwelling.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The dwelling is a converted former barn in open countryside, within the Old Farmhouse Complex near a Grade II listed farmhouse.

“The application site is located to the north of Cadeby and east of Market Bosworth in the designated open countryside. The site is accessed from Bosworth Road to the south and Ashby Road (‘the A447’) is located approximately 35m to the east of the site. Hereford Cottage is a single storey residential property that was originally a barn, constructed in the late 19th Century as part of the wider Old Farmhouse Complex.”

“The application dwelling and two other agricultural outbuildings (Aberdeen Cottage to the east and Highland Cottage to the south) are within the wider Old Farmhouse Complex and were converted into residential uses via application 90/01251/4. Five new residential properties were constructed at Bull in the Oak Farm to the north of the site following the demolition of the previous buildings within the site via application 17/00149/FUL.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier rear-extension applications were refused, while a later certificate approved a different single-storey extension as lawful development.

“Certificate of proposed lawful development for a single storey extension • Certificate of Lawful Proposed Use • 23.12.2025”

“Certificate of proposed lawful development for single storey rear extension to dwelling • Refusal of Certificate of Lawful Proposed Use • 07.11.2025”

Officer report

Why officers advised refusal

The extension would disrupt the historic courtyard layout, break the agricultural roofline and create an overly domestic, visually intrusive addition.

“The existing layout of the host dwelling was created, and is defined, by its historic use as an agricultural building. The dwelling forms part of the characteristic courtyard group layout of the Old Farmhouse Complex, and this formal courtyard arrangement is a key planform respecting the site’s historic agricultural use.”

“The proposed rear extension would depart from this existing layout of the property, which would be considered to result in the loss of the simple historic form of the building and courtyard group layout. As a result, the proposed development would be considered to uncharacteristically deviate from the historic agricultural character of the existing building.”

Officer report

Consultation and support

Four neighbouring properties supported the development, while the Conservation Officer found no adverse effect on heritage significance.

“No responses have been received at the time of the publication of this Report, however the consultation period is still underway. Should any formal comments be submitted, these will be reported on the Late Items Report. The application was supported by a covering letter that includes signed letters from four neighbouring residential properties, which are all in support of the development.”

“The Council’s Conservation Officer considered that the proposal would not result in any adverse impact upon the special interest or heritage significance of any heritage assets.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicants spoke about the application at the committee meeting.

Committee decision

Members considered the proposal would not be visually intrusive or harmful to the dwelling or surrounding area, then unanimously granted permission with conditions delegated to officers.

“Notwithstanding the officer’s recommendation that permission be refused, members felt that the proposal would not be visually intrusive and would not harm the character of the dwelling or the surrounding area. It was moved by Councillor Cook and seconded by Councillor Lynch that permission be granted with the conditions delegated to officers. Upon being put to the vote, the motion was CARRIED and it was unanimously…”

“(ii) The Assistant Director Planning and Regeneration be granted authority to agree the detail of the planning conditions.”

Minutes