North East Derbyshire District Council appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in North East Derbyshire?
You will see how visibility, landscape effects and fallbacks featured in the selected 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
- 20 of 33
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 6
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 14
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 14
- of 20 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: North East Derbyshire LPA (53.221514, −1.437207). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
North East Derbyshire District Council appeal findings
North East Derbyshire: visible, permanent and larger changes
Only one allowed appeal appears in the selected examples. The countryside example includes landscape character and gives only a conclusion.
Counted against appeals
Why changes harmed area character
Major views stayed harmful
From the colliery tip, major adverse views would remain throughout the proposal’s operational lifetime.
Details and fallback did not remove harm
Materials, ridge and elevation steps, and a garden setting did not overcome scale harm. A permanent log store was worse than the tarpaulin fallback.
Countryside harm was overriding
The Inspector concluded that harm to countryside character and appearance, including landscape character, was an overriding concern.
Helped or needed
Why one raised roof was less visible
Road views were limited
The roof sloped away from the road, the house sat well back, and nearby homes were further forward and varied in height. The Inspector found higher eaves and ridge would not be highly perceptible.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal notice identify public views that would remain harmful?
- Does the refusal notice compare the proposal with a genuine fallback?
- Does the refusal notice explain how added scale changes the original dwelling’s character?
The selected extracts do not include each appeal’s full reasoning or the original refusal notices. 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
30 January 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described as the “demolition of single storey extension to the northeast, demolition of single storey extension to the southwest, demolition of rear garage outbuilding, erection of 2 x 2 storey side extensions, erection of new entrance feature, erection of orangery to the rear, roof raised and rear dormer added to form habitable rooms in roof space, erection of new garage”.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
The roof of the dwelling slopes away from the road. Furthermore, the dwelling is sited a significant distance from the road and the dwellings either side are positioned further forward and are of varying heights. Consequently, the proposed increase in eaves and ridge height would not be highly perceptible when viewed from the surrounding area, nor would they significantly alter the character and appearance of the existing property.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
28 April 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the installation and operation of a renewable energy generating station comprising of ground-mounted photovoltaic solar arrays together with inverter/transformer units, BESS units, control house, substation, onsite grid connection equipment, storage containers, site access, access gates, internal access tracks, security measures, other ancillary infrastructure, and landscaping and biodiversity enhancements.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
I agree with the main parties that the year one visual effect from the colliery tip would be Major adverse. The appellant considers this would be negligible by year 15, but instead I concur with the Council that this Major adverse effect would remain for the proposal’s operational lifetime. I find there would be a Moderate/Major landscape effect on the site and its immediate environs, and a Moderate effect on its wider environs within the Coalfield Village Farmland landscape. As such, the proposal would be significantly harmful to the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 29 · Source page 5
5 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described on the planning application form as a ‘Retrospective Planning Application for Erection of [name].’
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
In the event of this appeal being dismissed, the appellant suggests that logs would still be stored to the front of the bungalow but under tarpaulin. This fallback may occur, but the log store that is the subject of this appeal would be a permanent feature, irrespective as to whether the occupants of the property need to store logs outside the dwelling. As such, the appeal development would continue to have a worse effect on the character and appearance of the area compared to the fallback position.
Paragraph 6 · Source pages 1, 2
13 February 2026 · 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 effects of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The appellant has questioned the volumetric and special justification approach adopted by the Council for extensions to dwellings in the countryside. However, whilst I have had regard to the calculations, this has not been determinative in isolation to my assessment. The resulting building would still clearly be seen as a single dwelling, and there are features of the design, such as the materials and the step down from the ridge, and step in from the front and rear elevations, which seek to respond positively to the host property. Moreover, the proposal would be located wholly within the garden of the house. However, this does not overcome my concerns regarding the resulting harmful impact to the character and appearance of the surrounding area, from the significant change in the scale and character of the original dwelling.
Paragraph 5 · Source pages 1, 2
5 July 2021 · 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 proposal on the character and appearance of the area, including landscape character.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
However, the policies of the development plan and the Framework both seek to protect distinctive landscape character and the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. I have concluded that there would be adverse harm caused to the character and appearance of the countryside and this includes landscape character where such harm would be moderately adverse. These are matters of overriding concern and the development would conflict with the development plan when taken as a whole. There are no other considerations, including the policies in the Framework that would outweigh this conflict. Therefore, for the reasons given above and taking into account all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.
Paragraph 28 · Source pages 5, 6