North Kesteven District Council appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in North Kesteven?
See why extensions and a gazebo were dismissed, and what the allowed sign was found to preserve.
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 13
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 1
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 7
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 6
- 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 Kesteven LPA (53.081202, −0.446154). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
North Kesteven District Council appeal findings
How extensions affected North Kesteven’s local character
The selected examples’ allowed evidence is Appeal 88736, a sign in Sleaford Conservation Area, so comparison with home extensions is narrow.
Counted against appeals
Where extensions and a gazebo caused harm
Extensions harmed buildings and surroundings
The porch was found harmful to its host building and surroundings. A two-storey extension conflicted with a policy seeking a positive contribution to local character.
Larger extension at odds with rural locality
The dilapidated barn did not make the larger extension a positive addition. It was found at odds with the dwelling and rural locality.
Gazebo harm outweighed its benefits
The gazebo’s harm to the conservation area and public house was found to outweigh the benefits put forward.
Helped or needed
What the allowed sign was found to preserve
Sign preserved the conservation area
The Inspector concluded it was not harmful to listed buildings or visual amenity and preserved the Sleaford Conservation Area.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify harm to your building, its surroundings, or both?
- Would your extension look at odds with the dwelling or rural locality?
- Does the refusal say benefits fail to outweigh conservation-area or heritage harm?
Appeal 85016 has a heritage focus, limiting its use for general design refusals. 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
13 May 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
No verified development description was available for this example.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue for appeal B is the effect of the works on the special architectural and historic interest of the listed building, the setting of nearby listed buildings and the character and appearance of the Sleaford Conservation Area.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons above, the sign although not in accordance with the guidance in the NKSDG is not harmful to the significance of listed buildings or visual amenity and accords with the Act. Furthermore, it preserves the character and appearance of the SCA. In so far as it is relevant, there would be no conflict with policies S53, S57 and SS55 of the LP which seek to protect, conserve and seek opportunities to enhance the historic environment of [name], promote high quality design and ensure that the design, materials, size and location of signs respect the scale and character of the building and surrounding area especially in the case of a listed building or within a conservation area.
Paragraph 25 · Source page 4
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
29 June 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
erection of a two storey extension to side and rear and new boundary wall.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that the extension would conflict with Central Lincolnshire Local Plan – [name] 2023 policy S53 which seeks to ensure, among other things, that all development including extensions achieve high quality sustainable design that contributes positively to local character.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
14 November 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
single storey porch extension to east elevation.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host building and on the surrounding area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude, the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host building and on the surrounding area. In that regard, it would conflict with Policy S53 (Design and Amenity) of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan 2023) (CLLP) which requires amongst other things that development proposals should contribute positively to local character, be based on a sound understanding of the context and relate well to the site. The proposal would also conflict with paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework which requires that developments are sympathetic to local character and history including the surrounding built environment.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
19 May 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
demolition of existing derelict outbuilding and erection of 2 storey extension to existing dwelling.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and surrounding area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The extension would replace a dilapidated building and provide improved accommodation whilst maximising the sites potential. I am also aware that the building is no longer fit for purpose nor meet the needs of the residents. Even so, I cannot agree that the proposed development would be an improvement nor positive addition to the site, and I do not find the overall appearance of the existing building to be so unsightly as to benefit from the proposals. It merely appears as an agricultural barn in a rural setting which is a characteristic of this context. Larger buildings may be more common in rural settings, but this would not alter my findings as the proposed development would still appear at odds with the scale, character and appearance of the existing dwelling and its wider rural locality.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
26 February 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
1, erection of timber framed gazebo. 2, erection of timber storage shed.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposal on the: • Character and appearance of the host property and the area, with due regard to heritage assets; and • Living conditions of nearby residents in respect of noise, odour and light.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Although the harm to the CA arising from the gazebo would be less than substantial, the Framework sets out that great weight should be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets. The gazebo would also harm the significance of the non-designated heritage asset of the public house due to its effect on character and appearance, and I also attach great weight to that harm. The proposal would have a number of benefits, but even considered cumulatively these benefits only carry moderate weight in favour of the appeal and would not outweigh the harm to the CA or the non-designated heritage asset. On that basis, the gazebo would conflict with the historic environment considerations of Policy S57 of the Local Plan as well as the Framework.
Paragraph 37 · Source page 6