North East Lincolnshire Council appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in North East Lincolnshire?
See why local inspectors found harm and how limited views reduced visual impact.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 8 of 10
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 3
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 5
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 7
- of 8 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 Lincolnshire LPA (53.544026, −0.133494). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
North East Lincolnshire Council appeal findings
North East Lincolnshire fences, views and open land
Among the selected examples, one dismissal gives only a conclusion. A housing case also covers location and green infrastructure.
Counted against appeals
Fences and open land counted against proposals
Two-metre fence harmed the area
The Inspector concluded that the 2m wooden fence would harm the area’s character and appearance.
Open character and settlement separation
The housing scheme conflicted with the area’s distinctive open character and the green infrastructure corridor between settlements.
Only a conclusion is shown
The selected extract says only that the development would harm the area’s character and appearance.
Helped or needed
Limited views and scale helped
Siting away from public views
The extension was away from public views, had limited private views and was not dominant in the street scene.
Scale and massing on a large plot
Its scale and massing would be assimilated within the large plot.
Conservation Area character preserved
The displayed conclusion says the fencing would preserve the Conservation Area’s character and appearance.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does it explain which public or private views would be affected?
- Does it compare scale and massing with the plot?
- Does it identify open character, a green infrastructure corridor or settlement separation?
The housing example is partly about location and green infrastructure, rather than only area character and appearance. 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
5 May 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
fencing including the reduction of the existing close boarded fence to the rear.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in determination of the appeal are the effect of the development on: • the character and appearance of the area, including whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the [site address] Conservation Area; and • flood risk.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Taking the above into account, the proposal would preserve the CA’s character and appearance. Consequently, it would meet the requirements of section 72(1) of the Act and would not harm the significance of this designated heritage asset. It would also not conflict with Policies 5, 22 and 39 of the [site address] Local Plan 2013 to 2032 (2018) (LP) which seek new development to be to a good design which protects and enhances heritage assets, including character and local distinctiveness.
Paragraph 15 · Source page 3
6 November 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘single storey extension to rear and side of semi- detached bungalow’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this case are the effect of the proposed development on:- • the character and appearance of the area; • the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Although it would be a large extension, given its siting away from public views and the limited private views, it would not be dominant in the street scene and its scale and massing would be assimilated within the context of this large plot. As such, the proposed extension would not result in significant harm to the character or appearance of the street scene or the wider area. The proposal would therefore accord with development plan policies 5 and 22 of the North East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2013-2032 (2018) (LP) which seek to ensure that regard is paid to the size and scale of developments and that a high standard of design is achieved.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
30 May 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘2m high wooden fence concrete posts’.
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
I therefore conclude that the fence would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area, and it would conflict with Policies 5 and 22 of the North East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2013-2032 (adopted 2018). Amongst other matters, these policies seek to ensure that development proposals have sufficient regard to the character of the area in which they are sited, including in respect of any visual intrusion, and deliver a high standard of design, having regard to a site’s context. It would also conflict with guidance at Section 12 of the Framework, which generally promotes the importance of good design.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
20 May 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
No verified development description was available for this example.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I find that the development would harm the character and appearance of the area. Appeal Decision: APP/B2002/D/25/3362781
Paragraph 6 · Source pages 1, 2
7 May 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
Outline Planning Application for up to 120 dwellings with associated landscaping and infrastructure with means of access to be considered only, with all other matters reserved.
Issue identified by the Inspector
During the course of the appeal, a signed and dated planning obligation made under s106 of the Act (s106) was submitted which the parties agree addresses the reason for refusal relating to education provision and affordable housing. I have taken the s106 into account and see no reason to disagree. Therefore, the main issues are: • whether the proposal would accord with the Council’s development plan strategy for the location of housing with particular regard to the character and appearance of the area and the strategic green infrastructure corridor between Waltham and [site address] ; • the effect of the proposal on heritage assets with particular regard to archaeology; and • the effect of the proposal on highway safety.
Paragraph 6 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
Consequently, the proposal would conflict with the Council’s development plan strategy for the location of housing with particular regard to the character and appearance of the area and the strategic green infrastructure corridor between Waltham and [site address] . Therefore, it would conflict with [name] 5, 22, 40 and 42 which seek development that, among other things, recognise the distinctive open character, a thorough consideration of the particular site's context, protect the setting and separate identity of settlements and has regard to the landscape context.
Paragraph 27 · Source page 5