Whitley Elm Cottages, Case Lane, Rowington, Warwick, CV35 7JE Data via plota.co.uk

W/25/0997 - Planning Permission Refused

Proposal

Single storey extension to provide ancillary space for existing business, changes to fenestration to viola cottage, associated works to external landscaping Data via plota.co.uk

View original council record ↗Last checked

Application progress

✓
Received
21 Jul 2025
✓
Validated
30 Oct 2025
✓
Consultation
31 Oct 2025
✗
Refused
11 Feb 2026
Appeal
Not lodged

Refused on 11 Feb 2026 · Planning Commitee · Last checked 11 Oct 2026

Planning committee

Decided by Warwick Planning Committee on 10 Feb 2026.

Refused

As officers recommended.

  • Officers advised refusal because the extension would cause significant less-than-substantial harm to the listed heritage asset without sufficient public benefits.
  • Supporters cited rural business improvements, while objectors raised concerns about heritage, Green Belt openness, noise, traffic and further urbanisation.
  • The committee refused the application after hearing an objector, a supporter and a councillor speaking in support.
Read how the committee decided The proposed works, site history, heritage concerns, public representations, speakers and the committee’s refusal reasons.

Source: Plota analysis of Warwick's committee minutes of 10 Feb 2026.

Documents 56

Consultation & comments 27

PDF Appellant's Final Comments Appeal Document · 30 Jun 2026 View ↗ PDF WDC Conservation-Objection Maintained Consultation Response · 16 Dec 2025 View ↗ PDF Rowington Parish Council Consultation Response · 11 Dec 2025 View ↗
PDF Commenter’s name hidden Show Consultation Response · 9 Dec 2025 View ↗
PDF Supporter’s name hidden Show Support Comment · 29 Nov 2025 View ↗
PDF Supporter’s name hidden Show Support Comment · 29 Nov 2025 View ↗
PDF Supporter’s name hidden Show Support Comment · 28 Nov 2025 View ↗
PDF Supporter’s name hidden Show Support Comment · 28 Nov 2025 View ↗
PDF Supporter’s name hidden Show Support Comment · 28 Nov 2025 View ↗
PDF Supporter’s name hidden Show Support Comment · 24 Nov 2025 View ↗
PDF WCC Highways Authority Consultation Response · 21 Nov 2025 View ↗ PDF WCC ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES Consultation Response · 21 Nov 2025 View ↗ PDF WCC Archaeology Consultation Response · 21 Nov 2025 View ↗
PDF Objector’s name hidden Show Objection Comment · 20 Nov 2025 View ↗
PDF Objector’s name hidden Show Objection Comment · 20 Nov 2025 View ↗
PDF Objector’s name hidden Show Objection Comment · 20 Nov 2025 View ↗
PDF Objector’s name hidden Show Objection Comment · 20 Nov 2025 View ↗
PDF Objector’s name hidden Show Objection Comment · 20 Nov 2025 View ↗
PDF Supporter’s name hidden Show Support Comment · 20 Nov 2025 View ↗
PDF Objector’s name hidden Show Objection Comment · 20 Nov 2025 View ↗
PDF Supporter’s name hidden Show Support Comment · 18 Nov 2025 View ↗
PDF Supporter’s name hidden Show Support Comment · 17 Nov 2025 View ↗
PDF Name hidden Show Consultation Response · 12 Nov 2025 View ↗
PDF Name hidden Show Consultation Response · 12 Nov 2025 View ↗
PDF Supporter’s name hidden Show Support Comment · 11 Nov 2025 View ↗
PDF Supporter’s name hidden Show Support Comment · 11 Nov 2025 View ↗
PDF Health and community Protection Consultation Response · 10 Nov 2025 View ↗

All documents on the council site ↗

Site constraints 4

2 listed buildings within 150 m of the postcode pin
Nearest: Whitley End, Grade II, about 8 m from the postcode pin · 2 Grade II
The site itself is not listed. Listed building consent is needed for work that affects the special interest of a listed building, inside or out, on top of planning permission. Setting can be a consideration for buildings nearby; there is no fixed radius.
Show all 2 with distances
Historic England ↗
Green belt: Birmingham
Inappropriate development needs very special circumstances.
Green belt policy allows a short list of exceptions, such as limited extensions and replacement buildings. Anything else needs very special circumstances that clearly outweigh the harm. Some green belt land can count as grey belt, where it does not strongly serve the green belt's purposes. The council decides this in its green belt assessment or on each application, so we do not mark it here.
Read the government guidance ↗
Agricultural land, grade 3b
Not best and most versatile land (grades 1, 2 and 3a). Source: the Predictive Agricultural Land Classification Map (Defra and Natural England, 2025; the Welsh Government's Predictive ALC Map 2 in Wales), a model rather than a site survey. Natural England's Provisional ALC map (1:250,000, 1970s) agrees.
Where development of farmland is needed, policy prefers poorer land over the best and most versatile (grades 1, 2 and 3a). Three sources: Natural England's post-1988 field surveys, which are definitive where they exist; the Defra predictive map for England (2025) and the Welsh Government predictive map, modelled from the soil map with 3a and 3b split; and the 1970s provisional map, which planners and other services still show, coarser and with grade 3 undivided. Where the provisional and predicted grades disagree, treat the predicted grade as the current estimate and expect an application to carry its own survey.
Habitat network: Network Expansion Zone
Where habitat is joined up enough to work as a network. Context, not a constraint on its own.
Not affected
Outside flood zones 2 and 3 · No scheduled monument at the site

Checked on 11 October 2026. The pin for this application is the centre of its postcode rather than the building, so distances to nearby designations are measured from the postcode and can be out by the width of the postcode area. Historic England, the Environment Agency, Natural England and council datasets, Open Government Licence. A boundary can run through a site and the council holds the definitive record: confirm with the council before relying on this.

Work with planning data?

Every application in Warwick - and every UK council - as a live feed, an API, or a bulk CSV export.

About Plota's data service

Important details

Council
Warwick
Application type
Planning Permission
Postcode
CV35 7JE
Received
21 Jul 2025
Validated
30 Oct 2025
Ward
Kenilworth Abbey and Arden
Parish
Rowington
Case officer
Show
Target decision
25 Dec 2025
Decision
Refuse
Decision date
11 Feb 2026
Decision level
Planning Commitee
Applicant
Show
Agent
Pegasus Group

How this decision compares

Decided in 104 days from validation, 42 days slower than Warwick's median of 62 for full applications. Refused, as 6% of full applications here are.

44%decided within 8 weeks
94%approved
512decided in the last year

Plota live figures for full applications decided by Warwick in the last twelve months, from validation. Warwick decision record →

Public comments

17comments received
6 objecting11 supporting

65% support · above the UK average of 16%

8 neighbours consulted · Last counted 11 Oct 2026

Read the comments on the council site ↗

Consultation & key dates

Alt. reference
PP-14188797
Planning Portal ref
PP-14188797
Neighbours
31 Oct 2025
Consultation
31 Oct 2025
Comments by
21 Nov 2025
Site or press notice
12 Nov 2025
Committee
10 Feb 2026
Statutory expiry
25 Dec 2025
Env. assessment
No
Warwick
Planning Authority Score
2.7/10
Poor
#245 of 296 councils
Relevant to this application:
Householder decisions

Warwick is slower than most councils at deciding householder applications, ranking #249 out of 296. The council extends the time limit on 57% of applications - one of the highest rates in England. Expect your application to take longer than the standard deadline. Householder applications are slightly more likely to be approved here (93%) than the national average (90%).

Frequently extends decision deadlines
expect longer than the statutory limit
These figures are council-wide context, not a prediction for this application. View full council performance
Warwick decision statistics
Based on MHCLG data, the year to March 2026
90%
Overall approval rate
Above avg (87%) #121 of 296
93%
Householder approved
Above avg (90%) #140 of 296
47%
Decided in 8 weeks
Below avg (63%) #249 of 296
57%
Extended time limit
Above avg (41%) #261 of 296
60%
Minor dwellings approved
57 decided (1-9 homes)
71%
Major dwellings approved
14 decided (10+ homes)
81%
Change of use approved
36 decided
915
Total decisions
94 refused in the year to March 2026