Derbyshire Dales District Council appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in Derbyshire Dales?
Learn what the selected examples say harmed area character and what helped avoid harm.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 30 of 38
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 6
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 22
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 28
- of 30 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: Derbyshire Dales LPA (53.017777, −1.672288). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Derbyshire Dales District Council appeal findings
How extensions and fencing affected Derbyshire Dales character
Most selected examples give only the Inspector's conclusion, so they do not show the detailed design assessment behind it.
Counted against appeals
Harm found in extensions and fencing
First-floor extension harmed area character
The Inspector concluded that the proposal above the kitchen and utility would harm the area's character and appearance.
Fence form and position were detrimental
The Inspector found the timber fencing, in its current form and position, detrimental to the area's character and appearance.
Helped or needed
Screening, scale and agricultural-building materials
Screened, recessive rural extension
The Inspector found the extension mainly screened, tucked behind an existing stone wall, with minimal wider views. Its recessive scale and agricultural-building materials reflected the rural landscape and former use.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify a harmful extension, fence, form or position?
- Does it address views from nearby homes and the wider area?
- Does it address scale, materials and the site's former agricultural use?
The detailed allowed reasoning in the selected examples concerns a secluded rural extension, not every Derbyshire Dales proposal. 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
19 April 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a single storey rear extension forming new entrance and WC.
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
The proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the area and would not be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, to Local Plan1 Policies PD1, HC8 or HC10, which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
23 April 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
for a single storey extension.
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
The extension would be mainly screened from [address], tucked behind the existing stone wall. Furthermore, there would be minimal views of the proposed development from the wider area due to the secluded position of the site. Nevertheless, the scheme would use materials that are characteristic of an agricultural building and given its recessive scale, it would be reflective of the character and appearance of the rural landscape and the former agricultural use of the site. The proposal would therefore comply with Policies S4, PD1 and HC10 of the Derbyshire Dales Local Plan 2017 which is concerned with development preserving the character and appearance of the landscape and existing buildings amongst other things.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
18 August 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
increase of principal elevation eaves level, addition of dormer windows and single storey rear extension. 1010101011010101011
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
With regard to the nature of this appeal, I find that the proposal would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the area and as a result, I find no conflict with policies PD1 and HC10 of the Adopted Derbyshire Dales Local Plan (2017), which collectively, amongst other matters, expect development to be of high-quality design and be in keeping with the scale and character of the original dwelling.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
2 examples
7 July 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a first floor extension above existing kitchen and utility.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Accordingly, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area and thus would conflict with policies PD1 and HC10 of the Derbyshire Dales Local Plan (December 2017) which seek to ensure that developments contribute positively towards and respect their context and the host dwelling. It would also fail to accord with the design guidance set out in paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
28 April 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the installation of 30 linear metres of 1.3 metre high timber fencing on the boundary line.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore find that the fencing erected is, in its current form and position, detrimental to the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, it is contrary to Policies S3(a) and PD1 of the Derbyshire Dales Local Plan (2017), which seek to ensure that all new development is, amongst other things, of high quality design that respects and contributes positively to the area in terms of scale, height, layout, appearance, materials and its relationship to adjacent buildings and landscape features.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2