Arun District Council appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in Arun?
Learn why sheds, fences and roof changes concerned inspectors, and which local details helped.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 24 of 31
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 8
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 16
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 22
- of 24 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: Arun LPA (50.815951, −0.607805). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Arun District Council appeal findings
Open streets, fences and roof changes
The selected examples lean more towards allowed decisions than the matched local set, and some extension evidence also concerns the host property.
Counted against appeals
Open streets and roof forms
Shed crowded an open street
The shed’s scale and position harmed a distinctly open, spacious street scene.
Roof change caused significant harm
The Inspector concluded that the loft conversion would significantly harm the host property and wider area.
Helped or needed
Boundary variety and bungalow design
Varied boundaries reduced harm
A boundary fence did not materially harm an area with varied boundary treatments.
A small verge change was accepted
The change incorporated only a modest grass verge, and similar corner plots had fencing or hedging.
Extension integrated with its bungalow
The side extension was found to integrate well with the bungalow without harming the surrounding area.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify how your proposal changes an open street scene?
- Is any lost verge or open space modest and matched by nearby boundaries?
- Does the notice explain harm to the host building, surrounding area, or both?
One dismissed roof-conversion extract gives only the Inspector’s conclusion, not the earlier analysis. 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
3 examples
26 October 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘the erection of boundary fence’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons set out, the appeal development reflects the character of the area, which whilst generally open comprises a variety of boundary treatments. I conclude therefore that the appeal scheme complies with Policy DM1 of the Arun Local Plan 2011-2031, which requires development to reflect the character of the area. Whilst there are no directly relevant policies or guidance in the Rustlington Neighbourhood Development Plan, the development would be consistent with the general objective of the plan to retain the character of the village. I have also considered the advice contained in the Arun Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 2021, which amongst other things states that hedges should be reinstated to preserve the character of the area. In this regard, I find that that the appeal development does not result in material harm to the character of the area. It would also be consistent with Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which seeks to ensure that developments are sympathetic to local character.
Paragraph 10 · Source pages 2, 3
16 November 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
retrospective proposal for the relocation of side fence and hedging to within the ownership boundary.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
[name] accept that the relocation of the fence has resulted in change to the appearance of this part of the estate, I am satisfied that, on balance, the resulting impact on its open character would not be harmful. The area of open grassed verge incorporated within the rear garden to the host is, in my view, modest and as such the impact that results on the openness of the estate is also modest, and would not detract from its overall character and appearance. [name] mentioned earlier, other corner plots have fencing and/or hedging in similar locations to that proposed and these examples have not, in my view, impacted harmfully on the estates openness or on its local distinctiveness.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
8 March 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
erection of single storey side extension involving demolition of detached garage, single storey side extension to other side to create garage and utility room and loft conversion with 1 x rear dormer.
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 surrounding area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The appeal proposal would not harm the character of the area and would integrate well with the design of the existing bungalow, as well as making full use of the land available. However, the proposed full height extension would not be subservient to the host. Even so, I note that in the [name] the examples shown of new side extensions are largely to existing two storey properties where a subservient design is likely to be more achievable, practical and appropriate in design terms. [name] accept, however, that the lack of subservience, resulting from the full height extension, would conflict with elements of the policy and guidance, the latter should be applied flexibly and not rigidly, and should also have regard to the individual circumstances of the case including its local context, which is the approach I have adopted here. For these reasons, I am satisfied that the conflict with those elements of the policy and guidance referred to above would, in this case, be limited and would not be sufficient to justify the refusal of planning permission.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
2 examples
29 November 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘6ft wide x 6ft high x 14ft long wooden shed on the front driveway non permanent structure all timber construction’.
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
Taking account of the distinctively open, spacious character of the street scene and the scale and position of the shed, I conclude that the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. It would conflict with [name] DM1 and D SP1 of the Arun Local Plan 2018 which require, amongst other things, that development reflects or improves upon the character of the site and surrounding area, taking account of matters including scale, siting and layout.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
13 December 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
loft conversion to form new first floor with front and rear dormer projections.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and the wider surrounding area.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposal would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the host property and the wider surrounding area. It would therefore be contrary to [name] DM1 and D DM4 of the Adoption Arun Local Plan 2011 – 2031 (2018) and the Arun District Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2021). These policies and guidance, amongst other aims, require new development to demonstrate a high standard of architectural principles, residential extensions to sympathetically relate to the existing building in siting, massing, design, form and scale, and new dormers to comprise a minor incident in the roof plane, not to be overly dominant, not to be located close to verges, and not to damage the original character and appearance of the building and its surrounding area.
Paragraph 14 · Source page 3