Harborough District Council appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in Harborough?
Learn which extension and garage features were criticised, and what the allowed examples concluded about acceptable 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
- 47 of 58
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 12
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 34
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 38
- of 47 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: Harborough LPA (52.539348, −1.007879). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Harborough District Council appeal findings
Harborough character: bulk, gates and building lines
The allowed extracts give conclusions rather than the design details the Inspector weighed.
Counted against appeals
Bulk, gates and building lines
Bulky first floors
Matching materials and a hipped roof did not overcome a first-floor extension whose mass and bulk were not subordinate.
Garages ahead of building lines
The garage was found significantly harmful, and the decision says highly prominent garages ahead of the building line would not be accepted.
Gates harmed the area
The Inspector concluded that the proposed gates would harm the existing property's character and the area generally.
Helped or needed
Design found acceptable
Extensions judged acceptable
The Inspector concluded that the extensions had an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area.
Good design suited the area
The Inspector concluded that the development accorded with requirements for good design appropriate to the area's character and appearance.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal describe your extension as bulky or insufficiently subordinate?
- Is any garage or outbuilding proposed ahead of the main building line?
- Does the refusal explain why gates or other works would harm the area?
An allowed record lacks a development description, so it is a limited comparison. 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
2 examples
6 June 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
two storey side extension, single storey front and rear extensions.
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
I conclude, the development would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. In that regard, it would comply with the requirements for development to be of a high quality design which respects and enhances local character and distinctiveness in Policy GD8 (Good design in development) of The Harborough Local Plan (2019).
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
21 August 2024 · Allowed
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 proposal upon the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore, I conclude that the development accords with Policy GD8 of the LP, with the draft DC and with chapter 12 of the Framework , all of which stress Appeal Ref: APP/F2415/D/24/3345806 the need for good design which is appropriate to the character and appearance of the area concerned.
Paragraph 14 · Source pages 2, 3
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
12 October 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the erection of a first floor 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 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The provisions of the Development Management Supplementary Planning Document (2021) are guidance only and indicates an element of discretion can be exercised. Whilst the use of matching materials and a hipped roof form would assist in some harmonising, the mass and bulk of the proposed first-floor extension would not be subordinate and thus harmful to the character and appearance of the area in the above terms.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
28 July 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
erection of gates.
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 in general.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the existing property and area in general. There is conflict with Policy GD8 of the Harborough Local Plan 2011 to 2031 (2019) which amongst other things seek to ensure developments are of high quality design which respects the surrounding area.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
25 May 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the erection of a new garage and vehicular gates.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the local area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
On the main issue, I conclude that the proposed garage would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the local area. As such, it conflicts with Policy GD8 of the Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031. This policy aims to ensure that development respects the context and character of the site, the street scene, and the local environment. It would fail to adhere to the guidance within the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document, Development Management, which states that garages/outbuildings in highly prominent locations in front of the building line will not be accepted. It is also contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, which states that development should be sympathetic to local character and add to the overall quality of the area.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2