City of York Council appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in City of York?
See which design features inspectors mentioned and where the selected evidence gives only conclusions.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 55 of 74
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 13
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 39
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 54
- of 55 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: York LPA (53.958761, −1.061466). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
City of York Council appeal findings
York extensions and dormers against area character
The selected examples have a more dismissal-heavy outcome mix than the matched local set. The allowed extract gives only its conclusion.
Counted against appeals
York dormers, scale and gaps
Front dormers and street character
The front dormers were found harmful. The cited guidance says they must be clearly shown not to detract from street character.
Materials, scale and building gaps
The side extension was concluded harmful. The decision cited materials, scale, proportion and space between buildings.
Access gate harmed area character
The replacement access gate was concluded to harm the area’s character and appearance.
Helped or needed
Allowed York extension: no character harm
No character harm found
The side and rear extension was concluded not to harm the area’s character and appearance.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal say a front dormer would detract from street character?
- Does it cite materials, scale, proportion or space between buildings?
- What in your proposal supports no harm to area character?
The 22900 extract covers claimed benefits rather than area character, limiting the displayed design reasoning. 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
18 April 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a two storey extension to side and rear with canopy porch to front.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For all of the above reasons, I find that the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore not conflict with Policies D1 and D11 of the City of York Local Plan Publication Draft 2018, or Policies GP1 and H7 of the City of York Draft Local Plan 2005. These policies seek, amongst other things, to ensure that proposals are appropriate, in terms of their design, character and appearance, for the established character and appearance of their surroundings. Similarly, the proposal would not conflict with guidance in the SPD, which seeks to guide the application of those development plan policies.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
4 January 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘replace existing vehicular access gates with new vehicular access gate’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the above reasons I therefore conclude that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policies D1 and D11 of the emerging LP and Policies GP1 and H7 of the DCLP which together, and amongst other things, seek to provide high standards of design and preserve character and appearance.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
2 November 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a two storey side extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The appellant raises the achievement of sustainability in this proposal whilst also meeting other social, economic and environmental objectives. This may be so, but limited evidence has been provided to substantiate these matters and given the modest size of the proposal, the benefits would be limited. The increase in size of the dwelling would primarily be a private benefit. I note there are no objections from neighbours, but this is a neutral factor in my
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
8 June 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described in the application form as loft conversion with front and rear dormers. Single storey side extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the appeal site and surrounding area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the appeal site and surrounding area. It would be contrary to emerging Policies D1 and D11 of the City of York Local Plan – [name] 2018. These policies, among other provisions, seek to ensure such development makes a positive design contribution, avoids damage to the character and quality of an area, and responds positively to the immediate architectural context and local character. It would also be contrary to Chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021 in respect of its aim of achieving well designed places, and conflicts with guidance in the SPD, which advises against front dormer windows unless it can be clearly shown that they will not detract from the character of the street.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2
8 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
two storey pitched roof side extension and new mono pitched roof to front elevation.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore find that the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. It would be contrary to Policy D11 of the York Local Plan which states, among other factors, that proposals to extend existing buildings should respond positively to their immediate architectural context and local character, in terms of the materials, scale, proportion and space between buildings. It would also conflict with advice within the SPD, as I have set out above.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 2