Isle of Wight Council appeal evidence
Refused over area character in Isle of Wight?
See local design concerns and helpful features in selected examples before checking your refusal notice.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 46 of 60
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 18
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 28
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 42
- of 46 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: Isle of Wight LPA (50.675749, −1.296562). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Isle of Wight Council appeal findings
Carports, front boundaries and prominence in Isle of Wight
Some of the dismissed selected examples give only a conclusion, so the design cause cannot be checked.
Counted against appeals
Proposals harmful to Isle of Wight character
Overly prominent first-floor extension
Its design, scale and position made the extension overly prominent in the streetscene.
Garage/store harmed property and area
The extract concludes that the garage/store harmed the host property and area, but gives no design detail.
Character harm without explained cause
This extract concludes that the proposal harmed the area's character and appearance, without explaining why.
Helped or needed
Open carports and removed front boundaries
Open sides reduced visual dominance
Individual posts and open sides made the roadside carport visually permeable. Its wood related to surrounding greenery.
Existing boundary loss carried less weight
The Inspector gave limited weight to its loss because the front boundary had already been removed without requiring consent.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify design, scale or position as making your proposal too prominent?
- Are roadside structures open enough to avoid looking visually dominant?
- Has any front boundary already changed without needing planning permission?
The selected examples cover a carport, driveway access, extension and garage/store, so may not match your proposal. 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
12 October 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a carport.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The carport lies directly adjacent to the road together with an uncovered parking space. The roof of the carport is supported by individual posts and the space between them is open along all sides. The structure therefore has a high degree of visual permeability. The use of wood relates appropriately to the natural verdancy of its surroundings and facilitates its integration within the environment. Consequently, it is not inappropriately wide, deep, or tall in this context and, overall, it has a very moderate presence in the street scene. Although it is taller than other fences along these boundaries, its permeable design and appropriate use of materials allows it to avoid appearing out of place or visually dominant.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
10 September 2021 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘to drop the curb to allow vehicular access to front of house for off road parking’.
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
I acknowledge that original boundary treatments make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the street scene, particularly where they include soft landscaped front gardens. However, given that the front boundary of the appeal dwelling has already been removed, and that this in itself would not have required planning consent, I have afforded limited weight to the loss of this feature in consideration of this appeal.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
5 February 2025 · 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 proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
As such, I conclude that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore conflict with Policies DM2 and DM11 of the Island Plan Core Strategy, March 2012, the relevant aspects of which seek to ensure that new development is well designed and that it preserves character and appearance.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
1 October 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘demolition of existing extensions; proposed extension at first floor level to form additional living accommodation, new vehicular access’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the site and area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In conclusion, due to its design, scale and position, the appeal proposal would be overly prominent within the streetscene and would therefore unduly harm the character and appearance of the appeal site and the area. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policy DM2 of the Island Plan: The Isle of Wight Council Core Strategy (including minerals and waste) and Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (2012) (LP) and Paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework which seek to secure high quality design which responds to local context.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
10 September 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a garage / store.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In light of the above, the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host property and of the area. It would conflict with Policy DM2 of the [site address] [name] and Development Management Development Plan Document 2012 (the CS), which supports development of high-quality design that provides an attractive built environment with a sense of place.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2