East Riding of Yorkshire Council appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in East Riding of Yorkshire?
See which visible changes and supporting features shaped local character-and-appearance decisions.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 64 of 98
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 7
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 53
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 62
- of 64 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 Riding of Yorkshire LPA (53.868167, −0.482526). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
East Riding of Yorkshire Council appeal findings
East Riding character: fences, extensions and screening
The selected examples include an allowed comparator, but a dismissed extract gives only its conclusion. The conservation-area shed example sits at this issue’s edge.
Counted against appeals
Fence screening and additions that caused harm
Narrow hedge planting would not screen the fence
The planted strip was unlikely to hide the clearly visible upper section, so the hedge did not remove the fence’s harmful effect.
Extension harmed host and surroundings
The Inspector concluded the side and rear extension harmed the host property and the surrounding area.
Replacement shed negated visual gains
The visual benefit of removing the dilapidated metal-clad building was negated by harm caused by the shed.
Helped or needed
What preserved character around holiday lodges
Screening and setback softened the lodges
Southern screening, northern hedgerows, a road setback and extra planting supported the finding that the lodges would preserve the area’s character.
An approved scheme provided comparison
The Inspector found the appeal proposal would not be significantly different from the approved scheme.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does your refusal notice say proposed planting would not screen visible parts?
- Does it identify harm to the host building or surrounding area?
- Does it compare your proposal with an approved scheme or existing screening?
The selected examples span holiday lodges, a fence, an extension, a gate and a conservation-area shed. 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
15 July 2021 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the erection of 2 holiday lodges with associated access and parking.
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
On the basis of my above reasoning I have found that the effect of the appeal proposal would not be significantly different to that of the approved scheme. I have also found that the appeal site and its surrounds are not typical of the YWAHLV. As such, due to the screening around the site to the south, the hedgerows to the north, the setback from the road in addition to the proposed additional planting, I conclude the proposal would preserve the existing character of the YWAHLV and the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The proposal therefore complies with policies EC2, ENV1, ENV2, and S4 of the East Riding Local Plan Strategy Document (‘LPSD’, adopted 2016), and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (‘Framework’), which seek, amongst other things, to preserve landscape character, ensure high quality design and encourage the growth of the visitor economy.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
9 August 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as the retention of existing fence.
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 acknowledge that several of the surrounding properties have hedges to the front that are similar in overall height to the fence installed at the appeal property, and that hedging is also proposed at the appeal property. Such landscape features, however, provide a softer and more natural appearance that does not have the same harmful impact on the character and appearance of the area as the fence. Whilst there is no land use planning objection to the planting of a hedge, I do not consider that it would overcome the harm that is caused by the fence. Furthermore, being described as 1.4m in height, the upper section of the fence would be clearly visible and given the very narrow strip that would be planted, it is unlikely to provide significant screening in any event.
Paragraph 6 · Source pages 1, 2
26 February 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as the erection of security gate and associated works to existing highway access to [site address] , Swanland, [postcode] .
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
Therefore, I conclude that the development does not accord with the design, character and appearance requirements of policy ENV1 of the LP, and chapter 12 of the Framework which also stresses the importance of, and need for, good design.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
31 March 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
proposed extension to side and rear of existing dwelling.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
To conclude, the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Policy S4C of the East Riding Local Plan Strategy Document (ERLPSD) (2016) does not specifically say that future extensions to converted disused buildings are subject to the same requirements as buildings prior to their conversion when assessed against Policy S4C 1 ii. However, my decision does not turn on this specific criterion within Policy S4C, as there would still be harm to the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area. As such, there would be conflict with the objectives of Policy S4C, which seeks, amongst other things, to accept proposals that respect the intrinsic character of its surroundings.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
10 October 2022 · 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 development on the character and appearance of the local area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The harm to the CA is, in the context of the significance of the DHA, less than substantial. In those circumstances, the Framework requires that the harm is weighed against any public benefits of the development. In this case, the shed has replaced a large, dilapidated metal clad building in a similar position. From the photographs provided, the rundown appearance of the previous building detracted from the character and appearance of the CA. However, the visual benefits to arise to the area from its removal have been negated by the harm caused by the shed. No other public benefits are put forward and none would outweigh the identified harm.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 2