Crawley Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in Crawley?
See what the selected local examples say about design and street setting.
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 48
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 12
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 26
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 39
- 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: Crawley LPA (51.125473, −0.182003). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Crawley Borough Council appeal findings
Crawley garage, carport and extension appearance evidence
The selected examples include a higher share of allowed appeals than the matched local set; several extracts give only conclusions.
Counted against appeals
Where Crawley proposals looked out of keeping
An unsympathetic carport addition
The carport was described as an unsympathetic addition and out of keeping with the area.
Size, design and footway proximity
For the extension, size, design and closeness to the footway were said to detract from the property and street scene.
A garage found harmful to the area
The garage proposal was concluded to harm the area’s character and appearance; the extract gives no further design analysis.
Helped or needed
Matching materials and a less prominent roof
Matching materials and approved drawings
The allowed side extension carried conditions for matching materials and the approved drawings to secure a satisfactory appearance.
A roof that avoided street prominence
The inspector concluded that the porch roof would suit the house, respect the area’s spacious character, and not compete with neighbouring designs.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify size, design or footway proximity?
- Does it say why the proposal is out of keeping with the area?
- Does it mention matching materials, drawings or street prominence?
The selected garage and carport extracts state conclusions without identifying the particular design features behind them. 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
2 examples
11 July 2025 · Allowed
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 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The development would therefore not be harmful to character and appearance of the surrounding area, and planning permission is granted. I have attached conditions suggested by the Council requiring matching materials and for works to be undertaken in accordance with the approved drawings, to ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
27 April 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the erection of tiled/pitched roof to replace existing porch flat roof.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the dwelling and wider area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
All of the above would ensure that the proposed roof would accord with the appearance of the existing dwelling; would respect the spacious character of the area and not be overly prominent within the street scene or compete visually with the designs or appearances of the neighbouring properties. Therefore, I find that the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of either the dwelling or the wider area.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
15 May 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
erection of garage building.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Thus, the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. This would be contrary to Policies CL1, CL2 and DD1 of the Crawley Borough Local Plan 2023 to 2040 (2024). These policies, amongst other things, seek proposals to respect and enhance positive aspects of the existing character and distinctiveness of the site and wider area.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
9 June 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a carport.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The development would therefore be an unsympathetic addition to the host property and out of keeping with the character of the area. Thus, it would fail to accord with policies CL2, CL8 and DD1 of the Crawley Borough Local Plan 2023- 2040 which together require that development is designed to respect, protect, and enhance the character of the site and wider area, recognising its distinctiveness, pattern of development and with the scale and siting of development complementing its setting.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
16 December 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
part 2 storey and part single storey side extension and single storey rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the appeal property and the street scene.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude that, as a result of its size, design and proximity to the adjacent footway, the proposal would detract from the character and appearance of the appeal property and the street scene, in conflict with the design aims of [name] CH2 and CH3, and the Framework, which seeks to create developments that are visually attractive as a result of good architecture and are sympathetic to local character, including the surrounding built environment.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3