Leicester City Council appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in Leicester?
See why selected cases found harm and which site features supported an allowed extension.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 63 of 103
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 15
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 43
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 59
- of 63 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: Leicester LPA (52.637939, −1.128477). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Leicester City Council appeal findings
Area harm, plot width and terracing in Leicester
Several selected examples give only a final conclusion, so the detailed analysis behind their refusals is unavailable here.
Counted against appeals
Area harm in Leicester refusals
Final conclusions found area harm
The Inspectors concluded the proposals would harm local character and appearance. These extracts do not set out the detailed analysis.
Porch harm across the crescent
For the front porch, the Inspector concluded that it harmed the host property and the crescent of non-designated heritage assets when assessed as a whole.
Helped or needed
Plot space and flush-set extensions
Width and open space
The Inspector gave great weight to the generous plot width and adjoining open space at the proposed scale.
No harmful terracing risk
Other flush-set extensions meant the Inspector did not see a particular risk of harmful terracing.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify a specific harm to local character or appearance?
- Is your plot wide enough, with adjoining open space, for the proposed scale?
- Would your extension create or add to a terraced appearance?
Appeal 56145 also concerns non-designated heritage assets, making it an edge-of-scope example. 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
6 January 2025 · 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 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The main issue between the parties appears to be the extent and size of the proposed scheme and its affect upon the character and appearance of the host property and the area. In assessing these matters I give great weight to the relatively generous width of this plot and the fact that there is open space adjacent. As a result, I consider that the plot does have potential to accommodate development of this scale without causing harm to the area. Added to this, the many other examples of flush set extensions, and I do not consider that there would be particular risk of any harmful terracing occurring.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
19 July 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as two storey side and partial rear, single storey rear extension. Extension to existing 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
For the reasons set out above, the proposed development would be significantly harmful to the character and appearance of the area. Therefore, it would conflict with Policy CS03 of the Leicester City Core Strategy (2014) which states that development is expected to be of a high quality design that responds positively to its surroundings and contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
23 August 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
for a front elevation porch.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development upon the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the above reasons, I find that the development does not accord with policy CS03 of the Leicester City Core Strategy 2014 (CS) which requires high quality designs which contribute positively to the character and appearance of the local environment, or with policy CS18 of the CS which aims to protect and enhance the historic environment. It would not comply with chapter 12 of the Framework which aims to create well designed and beautiful places. On balance, I conclude that the development does not accord with paragraph 209 of the Framework, given the scale of the harm that has been caused to the host property and to the crescent of non-designated heritage assets when assessed as a whole.
Paragraph 14 · Source page 3
7 October 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the construction of single and two storey extension at front, side and the rear of house; dormer to front and rear of house; outbuilding gym at the rear of garden and alterations.
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
Taking all of the above into account, I find that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; and to Core Strategy1 Policy CS03, which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character. 1 Reference: Leicester City Local Development Framework [name] (2014). 2
Paragraph 15 · Source page 2
Other appeal outcomes
1 example
15 February 2022 · Split Decision
Development described in the decision
single storey side and rear extension with loft conversion and box dormer.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The Council does not object to the proposed single-storey side and rear extension, and from my observations I have no reason to disagree. I am satisfied that this element of the appeal would accord with policy CS03 of the Leicester City Local Development Framework [name] ([name]), which is the general design policy, and seeks amongst other things high quality designs which contribute positively to the character and appearance of the local environment.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2