Adur District Council appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in Adur?
See what inspectors criticised in Adur schemes and what the allowed installation was found to preserve.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 19 of 21
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 3
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 16
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 17
- of 19 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: Adur LPA (50.833403, −0.2883). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Adur District Council appeal findings
Why Adur extensions harmed their streets
The selected examples have a different outcome mix from the matched local set.
Counted against appeals
Front extensions and street scenes
Front work caused harm
The rear extension was acceptable, but the front extension was found harmful to the host property and wider area.
Extension harmed the street scene
The inspector concluded that the side and rear extensions would harm both the dwelling and the street scene.
Vehicle access conflicted with character policy
The inspector concluded that the vehicle access conflicted with Adur policy on character, local distinctiveness, layout and landscape.
Helped or needed
What preserved Adur's character
No harm to the conservation area
The inspector concluded that the installation would preserve the conservation area and the setting of No 74–76.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify harm from the front, rather than the rear, of your proposal?
- Does it explain how your extension would affect both your home and the street?
- Do your drawings show why the proposal preserves the area’s character and appearance?
Appeal 90938 is a houseboat case, and its displayed extract finds the jetty renovation acceptable. 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
1 example
14 April 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
installation of 1no. [address] Hub and removal of associated 1no. existing BT payphone. Appeal B Ref: APP/Y3805/Z/25/3376762 [site address]
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • For Appeal A, the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to the effect on designated heritage assets. • For Appeal B, the effect of the proposed advertisement on amenity.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Drawing the above together, I conclude that the proposal would not harm the character or appearance of the area. The proposal would preserve the character or appearance of the SSCA and preserve the setting of No 74-76. I therefore find no conflict with Policies 15 and 17 of the Adur Local Plan 2017 (‘the Local Plan’). Amongst other things, these seek to ensure developments respect the character of the site and prevailing character of the area, in terms of siting, height and size, preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area to which they relate and avoid harm to the setting of listed buildings. In a similar vein, there Appeal Decisions APP/Y3805/Z/25/3376762 & 6002526 would be no conflict with the heritage policies of the National Planning Policy Framework.
Paragraph 17 · Source pages 3, 4
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
14 April 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
proposed front extension and rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the wider area and host property.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The officer report notes the rear extension to be acceptable and the reason for refusal relates only to the works to the front of the dwelling. I see no reason to disagree with the Council’s conclusions regarding the extension to the rear of the building. Nonetheless, this does not overcome the harm the front extension would cause to the character and appearance of the wider area and host property.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
7 August 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
first floor side and rear extensions
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the appeal property and street scene.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Given this, it is considered that the proposed extension would have an unacceptably harmful effect on both the host dwelling and the street scene, contrary to Policy 15 of the Adur Local Plan (2017) which requires development to be of a high architectural quality. Neither would the proposal accord with Extensions and Alterations to Dwellings Supplementary Planning Guidance which requires roof extensions to respect the scale, character and appearance of existing dwellings or the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks to ensure developments are visually attractive as a result of good architecture.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
14 September 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a vehicle access.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the locality.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Policy 15 of the Adur Local Plan is relevant. Amongst other matters this policy seeks quality in the built environment with schemes that protect or enhance character and local distinctiveness and are appropriate in matters such as layout and landscape. In all the circumstances I conclude that the appeal scheme would conflict with this planning policy.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
24 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
for the renovation of existing jetty and change of use from mooring of leisure craft boats to mooring of up to five residential houseboats.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The first main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the riverside and the visual amenities of the area. The second main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties with particular regard to noise and disturbance.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
With the proposal the existing jetty would be renovated and whilst few details regarding the proposed works are provided, this is a matter that could be satisfactorily dealt with by condition. The appellant has also indicated that the site would be tidied up and that stored materials would be removed. Again, this is a matter that could be dealt with by condition. Subject to such conditions, the renovation of the existing jetty and tidying up of the site would improve the quality and appearance of the appeal site, without compromising its modest character and appearance.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2