Erewash Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in Erewash?
See character-harm findings in the selected examples and the limited allowed comparison.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 10 of 15
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 2
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 7
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 9
- of 10 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: Erewash LPA (52.93552, −1.34673). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Erewash Borough Council appeal findings
Erewash character harm: roofs, front gardens and conservation areas
The allowed example gives only a conclusion, and the selected examples have a different outcome mix from the matched local set.
Counted against appeals
Roof, garage and conservation-area concerns
Roof and dormer changed the dwelling
The inspector concluded that raising the roof and adding the rear dormer harmed the area's character and appearance.
Garage stood out in open surroundings
The inspector found the garage incongruous and prominent in a green, open area. Trees and boundaries would not hide it.
Extension reduced conservation-area character
The inspector concluded the extension would reduce the property's positive contribution to the conservation area's character and appearance.
Helped or needed
Allowed driveway: no stated character harm
No design reasons in the extract
For the dropped-kerb driveway, the inspector concluded it did not harm the area's character and appearance. The extract gives no design reasons.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal say roof changes or a dormer harm the dwelling's appearance?
- Would a garage remain visible despite trees or boundary features?
- Does the site make a positive contribution to a conservation area?
Appeal 85206 also covers outlook, while its character-and-appearance extract finds no adverse impact. 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
22 July 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘form a dropped kerb driveway to the front of the existing property’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the development on: • the character and appearance of the area; and • the safety and convenience of highway users.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Summing up, the scheme has not harmed the character and appearance of the area; and its use would not significantly impact the safety and convenience of highway users. Consequently, having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is allowed.
Paragraph 16 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
17 February 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
increase of ridge height by 450mm and insertion of rear flat roofed dormer and front facing rooflights.
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
In summary, I consider the raising of the roof and the insertion of the rear dormer are banded together, and would cause material harm to the character and appearance of the area, conflicting with Policy DC2 of the Erewash Local Plan (2014) and Policy 10 of the [name] (2014) which, amongst other matters, expect development to be of a scale and design that is in keeping with the dwelling to be extended, neighbouring properties and the surrounding area, as well as the guidance set out in the [name].
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
31 July 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a new build garage.
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 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I find that this would appear as a highly incongruous feature within an area notable for the absence of any such form of development. The proposed garage would thus detract significantly from the area’s identified green, open and spacious attributes. 10.Further to the above, I observed during my site visit that the appeal property’s front garden steps well forward of those of neighbouring dwellings to the west. Consequently, the proposed garage would appear prominently as an awkwardly sited alien feature when observed from the west. This would exacerbate the harm arising by way of incongruity. 11.[name] note the presence of trees, boundary features and gardens in the area, the presence of these would not serve to hide the proposed development or mitigate its harmful impacts to any significant degree. 12.Taking all of the above into account, I find that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to Saved Policy2 DC2; to Core Strategy3 Policy 10; and to the Council’s Extending Your Home Supplementary Planning Document (2006), which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
15 April 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
erection of a first floor side extension and single storey side/rear wraparound extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of [site address] and the surrounding area, including whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the [site address] Conservation Area (CA).
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons above, I conclude that the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the appeal site. The positive contribution that the appeal property makes to the character and appearance of the CA would be harmfully reduced by the proposal. Accordingly, the CA’s character or appearance would be neither preserved or enhanced in conflict with Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. This brings the proposal into conflict with Policy 11 of the [name] 2014 (the LP) and Policy EV5 of the Erewash Borough Saved Policies Document 2008 (the SLP), which seek to protect the historic environment. The proposal would also be contrary to Policy 10 of the LP and Policy H12 of the SLP, which seek design is of a high quality and that it takes into consideration local context and characteristics.
Paragraph 12 · Source pages 2, 3
2 March 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
No verified development description was available for this example.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • The effect of the proposed extensions on the living conditions of 9 and [address] with regards to outlook; and • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that the first floor side extension would have no adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area. This accords with the parts of policy 10 of the ECS and saved policy DC2 of the EBLP 2005 which require the scale, design and external materials to be in keeping with host dwelling, neighbouring properties and the surrounding area.
Paragraph 11 · Source pages 2, 3