Broxtowe Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in Broxtowe?
See the local appeal conclusions on character and appearance, and the proposal facts to compare with your refusal.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 18 of 28
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 6
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 12
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 18
- of 18 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: Broxtowe LPA (52.976481, −1.262127). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Broxtowe Borough Council appeal findings
Broxtowe character findings on carports, extensions and dormers
The selected examples include more allowed decisions than the matched local set. Most extracts give conclusions without detailed design analysis. Appeal 1053 also covers the existing dwelling.
Counted against appeals
Extensions and dormers found unacceptable
Front, side and rear extensions
The Inspector concluded that these extensions would unacceptably affect the area's character and appearance. The extract gives no design explanation.
Side dormer loft conversion
The Inspector concluded that it would unacceptably affect the host property and wider area. The extract does not identify the harmful feature.
Helped or needed
Carport, extension and loft conclusions
Carport set well back
The carport was not dominant or imposing because it sat well back from the road in a diverse, well-landscaped streetscene.
Single-storey rear and side extension
The Inspector concluded that it would preserve the area's character and appearance. The extract gives no design explanation.
Rear dormer and raised ridge
The Inspector concluded that it would not harm the building or surrounding area. The extract gives no design explanation.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify harm to the building, street or wider area?
- Does the refusal explain the proposal's position back from the road?
- Does the refusal describe a dormer or roofscape effect?
The Broxtowe cases cover carports, extensions and loft conversions, so their proposal facts differ. 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
9 August 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described as to extend new car port 2 metres from previous application.
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, whilst the front gardens of nearby properties are devoid of significant structures, this carport is not a dominant or imposing presence. For all these reasons, and as it is set well back from the road in this diverse, well-landscaped streetscene, it has not harmed the character and appearance of the area. I have no evidence that nearby occupiers intend to carry out similar forms of development, but having reached that conclusion, no undesirable precedent would be set should the appeal be allowed.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
24 May 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a single storey rear and side extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons, I conclude that the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the area, and would accord with Policy 10 of the [name] 1 Local Plan (September 2014) and Policy 17 of the [name] 2 Local Plan (October 2019) which together require development to, amongst other things, make a positive contribution to the public realm and sense of place; integrate into its surroundings and, in the case of extensions, to be of a size, siting and design that makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 3
17 February 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a loft conversion with rear dormer and raised ridge.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the building and surrounding area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
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 building and surrounding area. Therefore, the development complies with Policy 17 of the Broxtowe Borough Council Part 2 Local Plan 2018-2028 (2019) and Policy 10 of the [name] Part 1 Local Plan (2014). Together, amongst other things, these seek to deliver high-quality design in new development which integrates into its surroundings, providing a positive contribution, while having regard to townscape characteristics.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
2 examples
21 July 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
construct 2 storey extension to front and side of dwelling and single storey extension to rear of property.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the development on the existing dwelling and the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude that the proposed development would have an unacceptable impact on the character and appearance of the area and would be contrary to Policy 17 of the Broxtowe Borough Council Part 2 Local Plan (2019) which expects development to integrate into its surroundings and ensure a satisfactory degree of amenity for neighbouring properties.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
27 June 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as a loft conversion with side dormers.
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 wider area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
On the main issue, I conclude that the proposed development would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the host property, and that of the wider area. Therefore, the proposed development conflicts with Policy 10 of the [name] (2014), and Policy 17 of the Broxtowe Borough Council Part 2 Local Plan (2019). Amongst other things, these seek to ensure that development, including dormer windows, does not dominate buildings and roofscapes and contributes positively to the character of the area.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2