Derby City Council appeal evidence
Refused over area character and appearance in Derby?
Compare your refusal notice with the cited local-character findings.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 24 of 33
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 4
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 19
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 22
- of 24 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: Derby LPA (52.912568, −1.468342). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Derby City Council appeal findings
Where Derby schemes harmed area character
The selected examples include both outcomes but have a different outcome mix from the matched local set. Some dismissed extracts give only a final conclusion.
Counted against appeals
What made Derby schemes look out of place
Garage looked incongruous in the street scene
Although the trailer was moveable, the garage was found obvious and incongruous in the street scene.
Extension broke the prevailing local pattern
The conclusion says the extension was poor design and failed to respect the prevailing pattern of development.
Side dormer harm lacked detail
The extract concludes that the side dormer would harm the area's character and appearance, without explaining why.
Helped or needed
How an extension avoided street-scene harm
No significant street-scene harm
The Inspector found the side and rear extension would cause no significant adverse effect on the dwelling or street scene.
No first-floor setback
The Inspector found the extension would be in character with the surrounding area, despite no first-floor setback.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify a specific street-scene harm?
- Does it explain how your design breaks the prevailing local pattern?
- Does it say why your extension is not in character with nearby homes?
The cited extracts are a selected Derby sample, and some state conclusions without their earlier 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
1 example
27 June 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described as a “Two storey side and single storey rear 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 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
On the main issue, I conclude that the proposed development would not have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the dwelling, and that of the wider area. [name] find that the extension would not accord with The City of Derby Local Plan Review (2006), saved Policy H16d), insofar as the extension does not have a first floor set back, I find that the development would accord with criterions b), and c) of that Policy, which require development to have no significant adverse effect on the dwelling or streetscene, and for extensions to be in character with the surrounding area. Furthermore, the development would accord with Policies CP3 and CP4, of the Derby City Local Plan – Part 1 [name] (2017), which expects high quality and well designed developments, and developments to make positive contributions to the character of the area.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
28 March 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
erection of a sectional garage.
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 area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Nevertheless, the trailer is moveable and whilst the adjacent property No. 421 is set forward the proposed development would be obvious and incongruous in the streetscene. I find that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 1
15 January 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
construction of a double storey rear/ side extension to provide additional habitable accommodation; formation of raised platform to rear and construction of new boundary treatment.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The 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 represent poor design in a prominent position that would fail to respect the prevailing pattern of development. Therefore, the proposal would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the area, in conflict with Policies CP3 and CP4 of the Derby City Local Plan, Part 1 - [name] (January 2017) and Saved Policy H16 of the adopted City of Derby Local Plan Review (January 2006), which require high quality, well designed developments that make a positive contribution towards the character, distinctiveness and identity of neighbourhoods; and that there be no significant adverse effect on the character and appearance of the dwelling or the street scene in terms of design, massing, visual prominence, use of materials or proportions.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2
21 November 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a side dormer.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Taking all of the above into account, I find that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to saved Policies H16 and GD5 of the City of Derby Local Plan Review (2006); and to Policies CP3 and CP4 of the Derby City Local Plan Part 1: [name] (2017), which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
24 October 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
erection of boundary fence and gates.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the locality.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I find that the appeal proposals are in conflict with policies CP3 and CP4 of the Derby City Local Plan Part 1 – [name] (2017) and Saved Policy GD5 of the City of Derby Local Plan Review (2006), which amongst other matters, expect development to respond to their context in terms of boundary treatments and the local area and not create unacceptable harm to the amenity of nearby areas.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2