Chichester District Council appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in Chichester?
See the selected examples’ rural-character concerns and the street changes inspectors judged harmless.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 40 of 53
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 19
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 20
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 36
- of 40 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: Chichester LPA (50.875892, −0.746721). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Chichester District Council appeal findings
Chichester rural qualities and street enclosure
The allowed extracts for 17144 and 86374 give only the Council’s view or a conclusion, so direct comparison is limited.
Counted against appeals
Chichester rural qualities and front extensions
Rural qualities were eroded
The inspector concluded that the development would significantly and harmfully erode the rural qualities of its surroundings.
A front extension harmed the area
The inspector found that the two-storey front extension would harm the area’s character and appearance.
Helped or needed
Chichester mixed streets and enclosure
Mixed surroundings absorbed enclosure
A side extension and boundary fence added a small degree of street enclosure, but the mixed locality meant no wider harm was found.
No harm conclusion on extensions
The inspector concluded that the scheme would not harm the area’s character or appearance, but the extract gives no supporting explanation.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify erosion of rural qualities?
- Would your proposal add enclosure to the immediate street scene?
- Is the surrounding street mixed in form and character?
Appeals 17138, 950 and 86374 give conclusions without supporting analysis, while 17144 records the Council’s assessment. 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
30 June 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the construction of a single attached garage to the western side of the approved 2 bedroom chalet bungalow currently being constructed.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of its surroundings.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The Council’s assessment of the proposal contained in the officer report is as follows: ‘The plot is constrained in size particularly at the sides of the dwelling. The infilling of the area between the western side of the dwelling and the boundary would result in cramped overdevelopment of the width of the plot. This would result in a negative impact on the visual amenity of the area and the street scene. The proposal by reason of its size and siting would not be acceptable having regard to 1 APP/L3815/W/20/3260778 dated 18 February 2021 the existing property and would cause significant harm or detriment to the wider area....’
Paragraph 4 · Source pages 1, 2
23 March 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
single storey rear and side extensions, roof conversion and extension including five dormers and front porch extension.
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 surrounding area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Policy P1 of the Chichester Local Plan requires all development to be of high quality design in accordance with the National Design Guide. Policy P2 requires proposals to, amongst other matters, protect, enhance and reflect the positive characteristics and distinctiveness of the local area, and to be integrated within the built environment and landscape. Policy P7 relates to residential extensions and alterations and seeks to avoid harm to the character of the area. For the reasons given I consider the proposals would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the area, and so would be consistent with the policies of the development plan and with the National Design Guide.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 3
24 April 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the erection of a single-storey side extension, full property renovation, and elevational and boundary wall amendments.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development upon the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The combined form of the proposed extension and new boundary fence would clearly alter the existing built form on the appeal site and I accept that there would be a small degree of increased enclosure within the immediate confines of the street scene. But given the mixed nature of the locality, I am satisfied that the change would be assimilated without harm to the wider character or appearance of the area. Accordingly, I find no conflict with Policies 2 or 33 of the Chichester Local Plan: [name] 2014-2029 as far as they require new development to respect the character of the surrounding area. For the same reasons there would be no conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework’s objectives for achieving well-designed and beautiful places.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
2 examples
30 June 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
No verified development description was available for this example.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude that the development has and would contribute to a significant and harmful erosion of the rural qualities of its surroundings. Accordingly, a clear conflict arises with those provisions of policies 45 & 48 of the Chichester Local Plan which seek, amongst other things, to ensure that development proposals respect the local landscape character and do not result in an adverse impact on the tranquil and rural character of the area.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
19 July 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
for a replacement dwelling - amendments to design permitted under E/19/02956/FUL - to provide for 2 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 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore find that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. As such, the proposal would be contrary to Policies 1, 47 and 48 of the Local Plan1 which, amongst other things, seek to ensure that new development respects the character of its area. The proposal would also lead to conflict with the Framework2, in particular paragraph 127, which amongst other things, seeks to ensure that new development is sympathetic to the local character.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2