Bassetlaw District Council appeal evidence
Refused over area character and appearance in Bassetlaw?
Learn which proposal details to compare with the selected examples in Bassetlaw.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 23 of 29
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 5
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 17
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 17
- of 23 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: Bassetlaw LPA (53.332842, −0.958881). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Bassetlaw District Council appeal findings
Bassetlaw roof forms, fences and screening
Some selected examples give only the Inspector’s conclusion, not detailed reasoning.
Counted against appeals
Roof form and fence harm
Dormers made the roof overlarge
The roof extension’s scale, and the size and proliferation of dormers, were found unduly large and incongruous, harming the area’s character and appearance.
Side extension found harmful
The Inspector concluded that the proposal would harm the surrounding area’s character and appearance, without setting out the detailed reasons.
Boundary fence found unacceptable
The Inspector concluded that the boundary fence had an unacceptable effect on the area’s character and appearance, without giving the detailed design analysis.
Helped or needed
Screening limited views of the extension
Woodland stayed beside the extension
The extension did not extend west of the existing buildings, and retained woodland avoided harm to trees and hedgerows.
Screening reduced western views
The retained woodland would substantially screen the extension and host property from western viewpoints, limiting visual impact on the surrounding area.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does your refusal notice identify roof scale, dormers or their combined effect?
- Does it explain how the boundary treatment conflicts with nearby character?
- Could retained woodland screen the proposal from the viewpoints named in your refusal?
The selected examples include conclusion-only fence and side-extension findings, so they do not show the full inspection 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
1 example
28 October 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
single-storey and two-storey extension following partial demolition of existing single-storey offshoot.
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 the surrounding area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposed extension would have regard to the existing boundary features of the appeal site retaining the existing woodland area to the west and the robust visual screening that it offers. The proposal’s footprint would not venture any further west than the existing range of buildings and therefore I am satisfied that it would have no adverse effect on the health and vitality of any trees or hedgerows in that woodland area. As the woodland area would provide substantial screening for the proposed extension and host property from most, if not all, vantage points west of the appeal site, it would also limit any visual impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
15 January 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
loft conversion, single storey rear extension.
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
The Council raise no objections to the scale and impact of the proposed single-storey extension on the character and appearance of the area, and I find no reason to disagree. I also find that the proposed brick and render finish along with the use of concrete tiles would suitably assimilate with the mixed palette of materials along the lane. However, the scale of the roof extension and the size and proliferation of dormers, would result in an unduly large and incongruous development that would harm the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
9 January 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a detached garage, new French doors and windows to existing garage to form family room.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue of this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The introduction of French doors and windows to the existing garage would have a very limited effect on the appearance of No 2. The proposed conversion would appear similar to the extension on the other side of the property and would not increase the amount of built development on the appeal site. The conversion of the existing garage for accommodation for the appellant’s relative would therefore be acceptable and not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2
14 February 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as a “two storey side extension and single storey porch”.
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 5 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
In reference to the main issue, the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It would conflict with Policy DM4 of the CS which, amongst other things, seeks to ensure that new development should respect their wider surroundings and should respect their context in terms of density, height, scale, mass, materials and detailing. It would also conflict with the NPPF that requires development to be sympathetic to local character including the surrounding built environment.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 3
10 February 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
erection of 6ft fence, comprising concrete fence posts, 1ft gravel boards and 5ft timber vertilap fence panels. Fence erected to north / north western boundary of property and not extending beyond front elevation/building line of house.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Consequently, the development has an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. It therefore conflicts with Policy ST33 of the Bassetlaw Local Plan (2024) and Policy 7 of the Lound Neighbourhood Plan (2022) which require, amongst other things, that development is of high quality design and that particular attention is given to boundary treatments that reflect the surrounding character. For the same reasons, it also conflicts with the requirements for good design in the National Planning Policy Framework.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2