East Lindsey District Council appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in East Lindsey?
Learn how the selected East Lindsey examples describe harmful front changes and disrupted terrace design.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 7 of 11
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 0
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 7
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 5
- of 7 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: East Lindsey LPA (53.24964, 0.030239). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
East Lindsey District Council appeal findings
Front alterations and street character in East Lindsey
The matched local set has no allowed appeal. The selected examples show only dismissed proposals, and several give conclusions without earlier analysis.
Counted against appeals
Harm to buildings and streets
Bay window and boundary changes
A bay-window proposal was found harmful to its host building and surrounding area. A hedge-to-wall proposal was found harmful to the surrounding area.
Terrace rhythm was disrupted
A French-door and bay-type front addition was described as incongruous, accentuating an already different house and disrupting the terrace's consistent rhythm.
No allowed example matched
No allowed local comparison
This snapshot has no allowed local example for this issue.
Preserve the terrace rhythm
The dismissed front addition shows a proposal still needed to avoid an incongruous appearance and disruption to the terrace's consistent rhythm.
Avoid harm to the host building
The dismissed bay-window proposal shows a change still needed to avoid harm to the host building and surrounding area.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify harm to your building, street or wider area?
- Would your front change disrupt a repeated terrace rhythm?
- Do your drawings compare your proposal with nearby buildings?
Several selected East Lindsey extracts give conclusions without earlier analysis, so they cannot show why the Inspector reached those findings. These decisions do not predict another result.
Appeal evidence examples
Read the reasoning in matched appeal decisions
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.
Dismissed appeal examples
5 examples
21 May 2026 · 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 proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude, the proposed development would have a significantly harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. In that regard, the proposal would be contrary to [name] SP25 and SP10, which require development which maintains and enhances the character of the District’s towns, villages and countryside to protect the character and appearance of the area; and that for sites not identified on the [name], development will only be permitted on open spaces where unacceptable harm would not be caused to their appearance, character, or their role in providing a well-defined visual relief in an otherwise built up frontage and a prominent site at the entrance to settlements that provides setting for the built environment.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3
10 November 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
removal of 7ft hedges to the front of the property. Erection of 6ft wall to replace the hedges.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that the development harms the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Hence, it is contrary to Policy SP10 of the East Lindsey Local Plan (2018), which seeks amongst other things to ensure that new development is well designed and enhances the character of the districts towns.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
22 September 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the erection of a boundary fence to a maximum height of 1.83 metres.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development upon the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the above reasons, I conclude that the development does not accord with policy SP10 of the Lindsey Local Plan 2018, or with chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2025, both of which require well designed development which maintains and enhances the character and appearance of the area within which it is located.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2
28 February 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as “Current window to be brought forward in-line with the current porch and canopy supporting wall to create a ground floor bay window in the living room area”.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host building and surrounding area.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host building and surrounding area. Consequently, it would conflict with Policy SP10 of the East Lindsey Local Plan Core Strategy (2018), which amongst other things, requires well designed developments that maintain and enhance the character of the District and seeks to ensure the use of high quality materials and design that reflects the character of the surrounding area.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
28 November 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described on the planning application form as the creation of a bay type area to the front of the property, with French doors to the front elevation.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this case relates to the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Whilst other streets may be visible from the appeal property, where the dwellings are of a different design, including semi-detached dwellings, they do not impact on the broadly consistent architectural style of the properties on [address]. Whilst this is not a Conservation Area, the extension proposed would, nonetheless, comprise an incongruous addition to No 94 that would accentuate the already markedly different appearance of the dwelling. It would further disrupt the otherwise pleasing rhythm and design of this terraced block, with consequent harm to the generally cohesive appearance of the street. That brings the proposal into conflict with policy SP10 of the East Lindsey Local Plan Core Strategy (July 2018) which among other things seeks to maintain and enhance the character and appearance of an area. There would be conflict to with paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which seeks to protect similar interests.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2