Ashfield District Council appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in Ashfield?
See where local inspectors found harm to the area and what the allowed extension did not harm.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 15 of 24
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 3
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 10
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 12
- of 15 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: Ashfield LPA (53.092306, −1.259169). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Ashfield District Council appeal findings
Ashfield walls, fences and extensions: character harm
The displayed examples have a different outcome mix from the matched local set. Most give conclusions, not visual details, and the allowed extract gives no reasons.
Counted against appeals
How Ashfield walls and fencing caused harm
Front wall caused significant harm
The Inspector concluded that the proposed 1.8-metre front wall would significantly harm the area's character and appearance.
Fence development harmed the area
The Inspector concluded that the development and proposed further development would harm the area's character and appearance.
Helped or needed
What the allowed Ashfield extension did not harm
No harm found from extension and render
The Inspector concluded that the side and rear extensions with render would not harm the existing building or surrounding area. The extract does not say why.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the notice identify a specific harm from your wall, fence or extension?
- Does it explain how the proposal changes the area's character or openness?
- Does your evidence address the building and surrounding area separately?
The advertisement example (89346) is at the edge of this character issue: its conclusion is about amenity. 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 February 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described as two storey extensions to side and rear elevations and render to existing dwelling.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the existing building and surrounding area.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
For the above reasons, I conclude that the development would not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the existing building and surrounding area. Therefore, the development complies with Policies ST1 and HG7 of the Ashfield Local Plan Review (2004). Together, amongst other things, these require that development does not adversely affect the character and visual amenity of the area. However, I do not find Policy ST2 to be of specific relevance to the main issue of the appeal.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
22 November 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a new 1.8 m wall to the front of the property.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed wall would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the area. It would not therefore accord with the design, character, and appearance requirements of policy ST1 of the Ashfield Local Plan Review 2022, and chapter 12 of the Framework.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
23 February 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a 3ft fence either side of property consisting of concrete posts, 1ft kickboards and 2ft high fence panels. Brick pillar at end to give clear boundaries between both properties either side.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development and the proposed further development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The development and the proposed further development, which are both the subject of this appeal, would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area and would conflict with Policy ST1 of the Ashfield Local Plan Review (2002) which seeks to respect and enhance the local character and quality of an area. It would also be contrary to the high-quality design expectations of section 12 of the 2021 National Planning Policy Framework.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
26 May 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
No verified development description was available for this example.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the advertisement on amenity having regard to the character and appearance of the area and effect on public safety.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that, having regard to the circumstances of the road layout, the advertisement causes no harm to public safety. However, that lack of harm is outweighed by the significant harm to amenity, and on balance, the appeal should be dismissed.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 3
Other appeal outcomes
1 example
12 June 2026 · Split Decision
Development described in the decision
described as ‘Fence installed made of treated feather edged wood around external residential boundary. Front porch with front canopy running to width of front elevation of the property. Front dropped kerb permit already granted. Front tarmac driveway to be installed sometime soon’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this case are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the area; • highway safety in regards to visibility when entering/egressing from [address].
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude then that this would significantly harm the openness of the area and its character and appearance, contrary to the development plan policies ST1 and HG7 in the Ashfield Local Plan Review (2002) (LP) which seek to ensure that proposals do not adversely affect the character and visual amenity of the area. The other parts of the proposal would accord with those policies.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2