New Forest District Council appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in New Forest?
See the selected local conclusions on character harm and conditions for an allowed flue.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 36 of 43
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 6
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 29
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 23
- of 36 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: New Forest LPA (50.877948, −1.69714). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
New Forest District Council appeal findings
New Forest character: fences, wall and flue finish
The dismissed extracts mainly give conclusions, not detailed visual analysis. The selected examples do not mirror the matched local set’s outcome mix, and the allowed example concerns an outbuilding flue.
Counted against appeals
Fences and a front wall found harmful
Retrospective and boundary fences
A retrospective fence was concluded to harm character and appearance. A boundary fence with planting was said to have an unacceptable effect.
White wall and railings
Replacing front conifers with a white rendered wall and anthracite-grey railings was concluded to harm the surrounding area’s character and appearance.
Helped or needed
Conditions for an outbuilding flue
Matt black flue finish
The Inspector considered conditions for approved plans and a matt black finish in perpetuity necessary to maintain the area’s character and appearance.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Which feature does the refusal say harms character and appearance?
- Does the refusal discuss colour, materials or a condition?
- Does it explain why material considerations do not outweigh the harm?
The extracts do not explain the visual analysis behind the fences, wall or railings. 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
1 March 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
for a flue to an existing outbuilding.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the appeal proposal upon the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Other than the standard time limit condition the Council recommends that a condition is imposed that requires the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans and that the new flue is kept with a matt black finish in perpetuity. I consider that in the interests of maintaining the character and appearance of the area that these conditions are necessary.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
6 June 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
Overall, I conclude the proposed development would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area. As such, it would not comply with Policy ENV3 of the New Forest District Local Plan Part 1: Planning Strategy 2020. The policy seeks that the development to achieve high quality design which promotes local distinctiveness, respects and enhances the existing character of the area.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
10 December 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a retrospective application for fence.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposed development would result in harm to character and appearance and would therefore conflict with the development plan when considered as a whole. There are no material considerations, either individually or in combination, that outweigh the identified harm and associated development plan conflict. The appeal is therefore dismissed.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
26 January 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as: To remove 15ft high x 6ft wide conifer bushes (that are dead/untidy) and replace with garden wall (white rendered) with anthracite grey railings at front of property to match house.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area. I therefore find that it conflicts with Policies ENV3 and ENV4 of the Local Plan 2016-2036, [name]: Planning Strategy. Amongst other aspects, these seek high-quality development that contribute positively to distinctive local character.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
7 January 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as a ‘boundary fence and planting’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons identified above, I conclude that the development has had an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. The development is therefore contrary to Policy ENV3 of the New Forest Local Plan 2016-2036 [name]: Planning Strategy (NFLPPO) in so far as it requires new development to respect and enhance local distinctiveness.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 2