Bath and North East Somerset Council appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in Bath and North East Somerset?
This review compares selected local examples on area character and appearance.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 30 of 65
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 10
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 19
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 22
- of 30 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: Bath and North East Somerset LPA (51.355967, −2.475201). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Bath and North East Somerset Council appeal findings
Bath area character: conclusions and visibility
The selected examples contain both outcomes but do not mirror the matched local set's outcome mix. Dismissal extracts give conclusions rather than detailed design analysis.
Counted against appeals
Dismissed designs: character harm
Garage found harmful
The Inspector concluded that the prefabricated garage would harm the area's character and appearance. The displayed extract does not identify the feature responsible.
Extension judged materially harmful
The Inspector found the dwelling alterations and extension materially harmful to the area's character and appearance. No further design analysis is shown.
Framework conflict recorded
The conclusion says the loft proposal conflicted overall with the Framework. The character and appearance analysis is not in the displayed extract.
Helped or needed
Public visibility and existing variety
Mostly concealed from public land
The rear extensions were mostly concealed from public land, so the Inspector considered their effect on area character and appearance minimal.
Existing houses varied markedly
The Inspector said nearby large detached houses differed significantly in design, bulk, materials and overall appearance.
Dormer found not harmful
The Inspector concluded that the enlarged dormer did not harm the area's character and appearance. The supplied extract gives no reasons for that conclusion.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify a specific harm to local character or appearance?
- Does it explain the relevant height, massing or scale?
- Would public views of the proposal be limited or largely concealed?
The rear-extension example also assesses the host building, so its visibility point only partly covers the wider area. 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
2 examples
10 March 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
to increase size of dormer extension to allow for staircase and better thermal recovery.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development upon the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore, in view of the above, I conclude that the development does not harm the character and appearance of the area. The development is in accordance with Policy CP6 of the Bath and [name] (adopted 2014) which promotes high quality design and Policies D1, D2, D3, D4 and D5 of the Bath and North East Somerset Placemaking Plan (adopted
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
5 December 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
erection of ground floor rear extension and first floor rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host building and the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
In relation to its impact on the character and appearance of the area I believe this would be minimal as the development would be, for the most part, concealed from public land. Furthermore, the present character and appearance of the area, particularly of [address], is defined by those large detached houses, like the appeal site, that stand proudly along the street, but these do differ significantly in terms of design, bulk, materials and overall appearance.
Paragraph 17 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
7 July 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described on the planning application form as ‘Raising of ridge to create living space in the loft area, roof pitch increased to 40 degrees. Dormer windows to front and rear elevations. Single storey extensions.’
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Part 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) seeks to achieve well-designed places. Whilst the appeal proposal may accord with some elements of the Framework, the appeal proposal would conflict with Paragraph 135 and fail to accord overall with the Framework for the reasons set out in this decision. Paragraph 139 of the Framework states that development that is not well designed should be refused.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 2
1 March 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
prefabricated garage erection to the north east corner of garden.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In summary, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. It would be contrary to Policy CP6 of the Bath and [name] 2014 and Policies D1, D2, D3 and D5 of the Bath and North East Somerset Placemaking Plan 2017, which together seek to ensure that development proposals are designed to a high quality that contribute positively to local character and distinctiveness.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
20 June 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
Alterations & Extension to Dwelling.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that the proposal would be materially harmful to the character and appearance of the area. It would conflict with Policy CP6 of the [name] for Bath and [name] (2014) and Policies D1, D2 and D5 of the Placemaking Plan for Bath and [name] (2017). Amongst other things, these policies seek to secure high quality design which responds to local character and distinctiveness, including in relation to matters such as building heights, massing and scale.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2