North Lincolnshire Council appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in North Lincolnshire?
See which fence and antenna details raised objections, and what the side extension was found not to harm.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 13 of 27
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 5
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 6
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 10
- of 13 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 Lincolnshire LPA (53.594318, −0.592286). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
North Lincolnshire Council appeal findings
North Lincolnshire street changes and area character
The displayed examples lean more towards dismissals than the matched local set, and the side-extension extract gives only a conclusion.
Counted against appeals
Siting, height and visibility
Siting, height and materials combined
The wooden fence was found detrimental to the area's character and appearance because of its siting, height and materials.
Highly visible corner plot
The corner-plot property was highly visible along the street, so alterations or boundary treatments could affect the area's character and appearance.
Council concern: visual intrusion
The Council said the radio antenna proposal would harm the area's character and appearance and be visually intrusive and overbearing for nearby homes.
Helped or needed
Side extension found acceptable
No unacceptable character effect
For the side extension, the Inspector concluded that it would not have an unacceptable effect on the area's character and appearance.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify harmful siting, height or materials?
- Is the proposal highly visible from the street or a corner?
- Does the refusal explain harm to the area's character and appearance?
The wall example also covers highway safety, so its separate access issue is outside this review. 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
17 November 2021 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a single storey extension to side elevation.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that the proposal would not have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. As such, it would comply with [name] DS1 and DS5 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan (2003) and with Policy CS5 of the [name] (2011) where they state that a high standard of design is expected in all developments in both built-up areas and the countryside and proposals for poorly designed development will be refused; the design and external appearance of the proposal should reflect or enhance the character, appearance and setting of the immediate area; be sympathetic in design, scale and materials to the existing dwelling and its neighbours; and that all new development in [name] should be well designed and appropriate for their context, and contribute to creating a sense of place.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
14 December 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
to erect a wooden boundary fence to front and side at [site address] , Bottesford, [postcode] .
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Accordingly, I conclude that due to a combination of its siting, height and materials, the development is detrimental to the character and appearance of the area. Therefore, the development is contrary to Policy DS1 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan 2003, which requires, amongst other things, that the 1 Local Planning Authority refs: PA/2021/731 & PA/2020/1430 2 design and external appearance of developments reflect or enhance the character, appearance and setting of the immediate area.
Paragraph 14 · Source pages 2, 3
8 July 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
erection of 17m steel support pole with 9m high radio antenna.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; and the effect on the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring dwellings.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The Council considers that the proposal would have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the area and that it would be visually intrusive and overbearing on the three neighbouring dwellings. It cites a conflict with Policies DS1, DS5 and DS20 of the [site address] Local Plan and with Policy CS5 of the [site address] [name].
Paragraph 5 · Source page 1
11 June 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as “wooden boundary fence”.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the fence on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
No 22 has its principal relationship with [address] and despite being set back from the highway, the property is in a prominent and highly visible location on its corner plot within the street scene. The property can be viewed from a substantial distance along [address] in both directions. Therefore, any alterations to the property or its boundary treatments have the potential to affect the character and appearance of the area, either positively or negatively.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
Other appeal outcomes
1 example
24 November 2025 · Split Decision
Development described in the decision
No verified development description was available for this example.
Issue identified by the Inspector
It is the proposed higher walling and the access arrangement to which the Council objects. With that in mind, the main issues for this appeal relate to the effect of the proposed 2/2.075m high boundary wall on the character and appearance of the area and the effect of that walling and the proposed vehicular access on highway safety.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Given that overall context, I consider that the development would not introduce an incongruous or overly dominant feature, with the design, scale and siting of the wall being sympathetic to the local environment and appropriate in its context. I am content, in this regard, that there would be no material harm to the established character and appearance of the area. As such, there would be no conflict with the provisions of policies DS1 and DS5 of the [site address] Local Plan (May
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3