Blaby District Council appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in Blaby?
Learn which front-boundary changes harmed Blaby streetscenes and what the accepted fence decision shows.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 14 of 19
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 1
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 13
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 13
- of 14 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: Blaby LPA (52.571536, −1.221938). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Blaby District Council appeal findings
Front-boundary changes in Blaby streetscenes
The selected examples have a different outcome mix from the matched local set, and the accepted fence extract gives only a conclusion.
Counted against appeals
Front-boundary streetscene concerns
Car port above the boundary
The tall car port would rise above the boundary wall and fence by the pavement, standing out in a green, spacious corridor.
No matching timber structures nearby
No similar tall, pitched timber structures were nearby, so the proposed car port would look out of keeping.
Safety need had alternatives
The Inspector accepted a need for protection near a fast-moving road, but found the fence and gates were not the only solution.
Helped or needed
Accepted fence beside a hedge
Fence and hedge acceptable together
The Inspector found the fence, together with the hedge, acceptable on its own merits for the area’s character and appearance.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal say it rises above front-boundary screening?
- Does the refusal identify a cluttered frontage beside another building?
- Does the refusal explain why another safety solution would not work?
The accepted fence extract does not say which design details made the fence and hedge suitable in Blaby. 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 August 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
acoustic fencing to the [address] boundary.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the fence on the character and appearance of the [address] streetscene.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Be that as it may, the fence to No. [site address] in conjunction with the hedge is wholly acceptable on its own merits as regard its effect on the character and appearance of the area and I therefore see no harmful conflict with Policy CS2 of the Blaby District Local Plan ([name]) DPD 2013; criterion b) of Development Management Policy 1 of the Blaby District Local Plan (Delivery) DPD 2019, or with Section 12: ‘[name] of Government policy in the National Planning Policy Framework, revised December 2024.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
11 October 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as a “proposed single storey front 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 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area. The proposals would therefore fail to accord with Policy DM1 of the Blaby District Local Plan (Delivery) Development Plan Document (2019), Policy CS2 of the Blaby District Local Plan ([name]) Development Plan Document (2013), and Policy H6 of the [site address] Neighbourhood Plan (2022). Together, amongst other things, these seek to achieve high quality design in development proposals.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
9 April 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
erecting a 5M x 6M timber type kit – free standing car port.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
During my site visit, I noted that the wide and spacious character of [address] to the south provides for some distant views of the [address] Cottages. The appeal property is set back from these cottages and the proposed development would not interfere to any significant degree with these distant views of the cottages due in part to the presence of trees in a neighbouring garden. 10.Whilst the appeal property has a garage in front of the dwelling, this is set back from the property’s gated entrance and front boundary wall and does not appear unduly intrusive in a street scene notable for its sense of spaciousness and for the general absence of buildings to the front of dwellings. A recent planning permission1 allows for this garage to increase in size, but it would still remain stepped well back from the site’s front boundary. 11.The proposed development would comprise a large, tall double car port. It would be located immediately adjacent to the appeal property’s front boundary wall. Due to its height and overall dimensions, the proposal would rise above the property’s boundary wall and fence adjacent to the grass verge and pavement. In so doing, I find that it would loom above the boundary wall and draw attention to itself as a prominent and incongruous feature within a green and spacious corridor notable for its general absence of buildings. 12.The harm arising by way of incongruity would be exacerbated by the appearance of the proposal. During my site visit, I noted that along this part of [address] there are no timber structures with tall, pitched roofs situated in prominent locations similar to the development proposed. Consequently, the proposal would appear out of keeping with its surroundings. 13.In addition to the above, I am also mindful that the proposal would be situated close to an existing garage, which itself has permission to be extended. I find that together, the proposed development and the existing garage (enlarged or not) would result in an unduly cluttered appearance, in contrast to the wider area’s uncluttered and spacious qualities. 14.Taking all of the above into account, I find that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to Blaby District Local Plan (Delivery) Development Plan Document (2019) Policies DM1 and DM12; to Blaby District Local Plan ([name]) Development Plan Document (2013) Policies CS2 and CS20; 1 Reference: 22/0020/HH. 2 and to Fosse Villages Neighbourhood Plan (2021) Policy FV6, which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character.
Paragraph 9 · Source pages 2, 3
2 March 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the erection of oak framed timber carport to front of property.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the local area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
On the main issue, I conclude that the proposed development would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the local area. As such, it is contrary to Policy CS2 of the Blaby District Local Plan ([name]) Development Plan Document insofar as it requires new development to respect local character and for its design to be appropriate to the context. It also conflicts with Policy DM1 of the Blaby District Local Plan (Delivery) Development Plan Document, which aims to ensure that new development is in keeping with the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
15 April 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
removal of hedge to front and side property boundary and replace with UPVC fencing with electric gates.
Issue identified by the Inspector
I consider the main issue to be the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the surrounding streetscene.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I note the personal family circumstances and realise that the fence and gates provide essential containment and protection, particularly given the proximity of a fast-moving carriageway beyond the residential service road. This is a material consideration. Nevertheless, the development is not the only way to achieve the necessary protection. Thus, I have attributed limited weight to this matter in my determination of this appeal. This matter does not outweigh the significant harm that the development causes to the character and appearance of the surrounding streetscene.
Paragraph 6 · Source pages 1, 2