Herefordshire Council appeal evidence
Refused over area character and appearance in Herefordshire?
Learn which area-character points to check against your refusal notice from selected Herefordshire examples.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 23 of 31
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 9
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 14
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 17
- of 23 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: Herefordshire, County of LPA (52.103693, −2.745121). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Herefordshire Council appeal findings
Herefordshire area-character conclusions
The selected examples give conclusions, not the detailed site comparisons behind them.
Counted against appeals
Loft imbalance, shed and front fence
Visible imbalance beside neighbours
The loft conversion was found to disturb the Close's harmonious feel and create a visible imbalance with its neighbours, seen from public land through an existing gap.
Storage shed found harmful
The storage shed was concluded to harm the area's character and appearance. The displayed extract gives no further detail.
Front hedge replaced with fence
The hedge-to-fence proposal was concluded to harm area character and appearance. The displayed extract does not set out why.
Helped or needed
Porch and garage: no character harm
Porch had no adverse effect
The porch alteration was concluded not to have an unacceptably adverse effect on area character and appearance. The displayed extract gives no supporting detail.
Garage did not undermine character
The proposed garage was concluded not to undermine area character and appearance. The displayed extract gives no supporting detail.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify a visible gap or imbalance beside neighbouring homes?
- Does it name the part of your proposal said to harm area character?
- Does it compare your proposal with nearby homes seen from public land?
Appeal 76276 also covers heritage and boundary matters, placing it at this page's edge. 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
21 June 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
retention and alteration of front porch.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 1 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude that the development would not have an unacceptably adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area, and would comply with the relevant development plan and emerging neighbourhood plan policies discussed above.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
17 June 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a garage.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude the proposed development would not undermine the character and appearance of the area. Consequently, it would accord with Policies SD1 and LD1 of the Herefordshire Local Plan (2015) which, amongst other things, require new buildings to maintain local distinctiveness and proposals to be positively influenced by the character of the landscape and townscape.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
17 May 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
rear loft conversion to add two bedrooms and an en-suite, converting existing smallest bedroom into new stairwell to the loft conversion.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effects of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would, therefore, disturb the harmonious feel that defines the character and appearance of the Close. Furthermore, it would also create an imbalance with the properties located to either side of the appeal site, which would be easily perceived from public land particularly from the existing gap between 6 and [address].
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
25 January 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘Installation of a timber shed pre manufactured for storage’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development upon the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore find that the development harms the character and appearance of the area. Consequently, it conflicts with Policy SD1 and LD1 of the Herefordshire Local Plan Core Strategy 2011-2031, which together seek to ensure that new development respects the local context while making a positive contribution to the character of the area.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
12 September 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
removal of 12' high Leylandii hedge at the front of the property which borders the pathway alongside [site address] . To be replaced with an 8' fence matching an existing short portion of fencing.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore, I conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, it would conflict with policies SS6, LD1, LD4 and SD1 of the Herefordshire Local Plan Core Strategy 2011-2031 [name] 2015, and policies BE1.1, BE2.1 and NE2.1 of the Ledbury Neighbourhood Development Plan 2021-2031 [name] 2023. These require, among other things, that proposals maintain local distinctiveness and townscape character, taking into account local architectural details and materials. They should conserve and enhance the setting of heritage assets, including the character or appearance of the CA. Moreover, boundary treatments should be appropriate to the location, maintaining and if possible improving the street scene.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2