Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in Hinckley and Bosworth?
See the selected examples’ design concerns and the limited evidence of what helped.
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 34
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 3
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 20
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 13
- 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: Hinckley and Bosworth LPA (52.616513, −1.391022). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council appeal findings
Garage roof and materials against nearby buildings
The displayed examples include a greater share of allowed appeals than the matched local set, and the allowed extracts give little explanation.
Counted against appeals
Why garage design harmed local character
A shallow roof stood out
The shallow pitched roof differed from nearby pitched roofs, making the garage stand out from the enclave.
Metal cladding lacked a local match
Metal sheeting differed from the slate roofs nearby, and the Inspector found the garage unsympathetic to its surroundings.
Helped or needed
What protected character and appearance
Matching materials were required
The Inspector required matching materials to protect the building’s character and appearance.
No unacceptable harm was found
For the raised decking and storage unit, the Inspector concluded there would be no unacceptable harm to area character and appearance.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify a roof form unlike nearby buildings?
- Does it compare your proposed materials with nearby roof finishes?
- Does it treat a backland site as ribbon development?
Appeal 83737 only names character as a consideration, not a character finding. 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
4 June 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the erection of raised decking to rear garden, storage unit and associated works.
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
Accordingly, for the above reasons, I conclude that the proposal does not have an unacceptably harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. Therefore, it does not conflict with the relevant policies of the DPD, as referred to above.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
23 December 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a single storey rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the building and the local area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I impose a condition specifying the relevant plans to provide certainty. A condition requiring the use of matching materials is also necessary to protect the character and appearance of the building.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
11 March 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
demolition of existing dilapidated outbuildings. Replaced with new 3- bedroom bungalow.
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 Council is partly concerned that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area through the creation of new ribbon development. Paragraph 13.12 of the supporting text of Policy DM4 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD (2016) (DPD) defines ribbon development as ‘where buildings are located single depth along a road frontage and often occurs on roads into and out of settlements, extending the area recognised as belonging to a village’. However, the proposed bungalow would occupy a backland location and would not be located along a road frontage. Therefore, it would not contribute to ribbon development and would not cause harm in this regard.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
28 May 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described in the application form as the “erection of a garage”.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue to be determined in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surroundings.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The new garage would be a significant building in its context because of its size on plan. It would stand out as being out of character with the remainder of the development, however, because of its very different roof construction. The pitched roof would be shallow, unlike the other pitched roofs within the enclave, and the metal sheeting would be unlike the slate finish on other pitched roofs. The metal clad barrel vaulting on the much larger buildings at numbers 1 and 2 [name], are distinctive in their context, as an echo of large Dutch barn structures, but the new garage would not be comparable in size and would not relate to its surroundings or the site’s history in the same way. The new building would have some features in common with larger modern agricultural buildings generally but it would not relate to the buildings in this locality and I share the opinion that it would be unsympathetic to its surroundings.
Paragraph 15 · Source page 3
3 February 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
erection of B8 storage building.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the principle of the proposed development in this location and its effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The area is, however, recommended as an addition to the list of employment areas in the most recent [name], although it is unclear whether this is reflected in the emerging Local Plan, which in any case is not sufficiently advanced to attract substantial weight for the purposes of this appeal. Nonetheless, the appeal site is part of an established employment use and, therefore, it would not be reasonable to consider the proposal against the provisions of Policy DM20, which relates to completely new employment sites. Consequently, the principal considerations are those arising from Policies DM4 and DM10, concerning the contribution of the proposal to economic growth and the effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2