Buckinghamshire Council appeal evidence
Refused over area character and appearance in Buckinghamshire?
See the stated local harm and the limited support behind an allowed appeal.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 16 of 35
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 4
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 11
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 9
- of 16 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: Buckinghamshire LPA (51.785348, −0.812127). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Buckinghamshire Council appeal findings
House design and street scenes in Buckinghamshire
The selected examples have a different outcome mix from the matched local set. The allowed extract gives only its final finding.
Counted against appeals
Where home changes caused harm
Harm to the dwelling
The inspectors concluded that extensions or roof changes would harm the host dwelling or property and its surroundings.
Design did not respect surroundings
The extracts state conflict with plans seeking high-quality design and respect for the existing property and surrounding area.
Helped or needed
No undue street-scene impact found
Proposal did not stand out
The inspector concluded the proposal would not be unduly dominant or intrusive in the street scene and found no material character harm. The extract does not show the reasons behind that conclusion.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal say your proposal would stand out in the street scene?
- Does it identify harm to the host building, surroundings, or both?
- Which design change does it connect to the stated character harm?
Appeal 91075 is at the issue’s edge: its extract mainly concerns housing location and the National Landscape. 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
19 March 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
No verified development description was available for this example.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this case relates to the effect of the development proposed on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Overall, I find that the proposed development would not stand out as an unduly dominant or intrusive feature within the street scene and there would be no material harm to the character and appearance of the area in this regard. There would be no conflict therefore, with the Council’s Householder Planning and Design Guidance SPD (2020), polices CP9, DM35 and DM36 of the Wycombe District Local Plan (2019) and section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework which, together and among other things, seek to achieve a high standard of design that responds positively to the character of a site and its surroundings. For the reasons set out above, I therefore conclude that the appeal should succeed.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
26 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as demolition of existing rear conservatory and construction of new single storey side and rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in the appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons, the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. The proposal would be contrary to Policy CS20 of the [name] for Chiltern District (2011) and to Policies GC1, H13 and H15 of the Local Plan. It would also conflict with guidance in the [name] and Householder Development Supplementary Planning Document (2013) which seeks to ensure that development, including specifically an extension to a dwelling, displays a high standard of design that reflects and respects local character.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 2
7 April 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described on the planning application form as “Changing garage into bedroom and removing the conservatory at the rear and replacing with new lounge extension and installation of roof lantern”.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this appeal is the effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and locality.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In these circumstances there would be conflict with Wycombe District Local Plan, 2019, Policies DM35 and DM36 which, among other things, and taken together intend that development should achieve a high quality of design and respect the character and appearance of the existing property and surrounding area.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
26 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
erection of 5no detached residential dwellings and associated works.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are:- - whether the development would be in a suitable location having regard to accessibility, development plan policies and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework); - the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area, including whether it would conserve or enhance the natural, scenic and landscape beauty of the Chilterns National Landscape (the NL); - whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt; - the effect on openness; - whether the development would be served by a suitable surface water drainage scheme; - whether it would represent a suitable density of development and would provide an acceptable mix of dwellings; and - if the scheme would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other factors so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify it.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In summary, I conclude the appeal site would not be a suitable location for the proposed housing having regard to LP policies CP3, CP12 and DM33 as well as NP policy 2. The Council’s refusal reason on this matter also refers to LP policy CP2 but this sets out a strategy to be applied in the allocations and policies of the LP rather than criteria against which this planning appeal should be assessed. The harm caused by reason of the identified conflict with development plan policies is tempered as the proposal would accord with the provisions of the Framework on the location of rural housing. Also, the development would be located so as to afford residents with reasonable access to sustainable modes of travel, particularly in light of its rural location. Character and appearance of area and effect on the NL.
Paragraph 9 · Source pages 2, 3
23 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
raising of roof, roof extensions/alterations to create new second floor living space and alterations to fenestration.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: (a) the character and appearance of the host property and its surroundings, and (b) on the living conditions of the residents of flat 2, [site address] with specific reference to light and visual impact.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that the development proposed would harm the character and appearance of the host property and its surroundings. Accordingly, a clear conflict arises with those provisions of policies CP9 & DM35 of the Wycombe District Local Plan requiring development to demonstrate attractive and high quality design contributing positively to making places better for people and which takes the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2