Nottingham City Council appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in Nottingham?
See why selected Nottingham examples were found harmful or acceptable for area character and appearance.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 22 of 39
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 11
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 11
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 14
- of 22 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: Nottingham LPA (52.960619, −1.17652). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Nottingham City Council appeal findings
Nottingham findings on street scene and established character
The selected examples lean dismissed, while the matched local set is evenly split. Most extracts give conclusions, not earlier design analysis.
Counted against appeals
Extension, sun room and garage harm
Extension and related works found harmful
The Inspector concluded that the disabled-living extension and related works would harm the area’s character and appearance.
Roof-terrace sun room found harmful
Converting a roof terrace to a sun room was found to unacceptably harm the area’s character and appearance.
Garage benefits did not outweigh harm
For the front garage, the Inspector found it failed to respect established character. Its stated benefits were not enough to outweigh the harm.
Helped or needed
Positive extension and kiosk findings
Positive street-scene addition
The Inspector described the two-storey side extension as an attractive, positive addition to the street scene that would not harm the surrounding area.
Kiosk conclusion only
The extract gives only the conclusion: the kiosk and advertising display would not harm area character or visual amenity.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal explain the claimed street-scene harm?
- Does it identify the established character your proposal should respect?
- What stated benefit would need to outweigh claimed character harm?
One allowed example is a communications kiosk with advertising, rather than a home extension. 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
17 November 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a two storey side extension with associated ancillary works and garden terrace.
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 4 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Taken together these factors would result in an attractive and positive addition to the street scene. Accordingly, I conclude that the proposals would complement and not harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area. They would therefore accord with Policy 10 of the [name] (September 2014) and Policies DE1 and DE2 of the Nottingham City Land and Planning Policies (January 2020) insofar as they seek to secure attractive development that considers the impact on the surrounding townscape and neighbouring properties, reinforcing and enhancing positive characteristics of the local environment.
Paragraph 9 · Source pages 2, 3
5 March 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
new communications kiosk with integrated advertising display and defibrillator.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in respect of Appeal A is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons given above, the development and the advertising display would not harm the character and appearance of the area or the visual amenity of the area. It would therefore not conflict with Policy 10 of the Greater Nottingham Broxtowe Borough Gedling Borough Nottingham City Aligned Core [name] 1 Local Plan and Policies DE1, DE2 and DE5 of the Nottingham City Land and Planning Policies Development Plan Document Local Plan Part 2, which collectively aim to secure well-designed, context-responsive developments. 1 The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
14 September 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘Double storey side extension to create disabled living accommodation. Rooflights into existing and proposed roof. New driveway and dropped kerb and change to the boundary treatment. External insulation to the existing house’.
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
For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Therefore, the development conflicts with Policy 10 of the [name] 1 Local Plan (2014) (the “ACS”), and Policies DE1 and DE2 of the Nottingham City Land and Planning Policies Development Plan Document Local Plan Part 2 (2020). Together, amongst other things, these require development to make a positive contribution to the sense of place, that development respects and enhance the streetscape and character of the area, and that development create attractive new spaces.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
8 October 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as “convert roof terrace to a sun room.”
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would therefore unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the area. Such that it would not accord with Policy 10 of the Broxtowe Borough, Gedling Borough and Nottingham City Aligned Core Strategies Part 1 Local Plan (2014) and Policies DE1 and DE2 of the Nottingham City Council Land and Planning Policies- Local Plan Part 2 (2020). Amongst other matters, these seek to ensure high quality design that respects local character and distinctiveness.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
18 February 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the erection of a garage to the front of the dwellinghouse.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this case relates to the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
[name] have found no harm in relation to the living conditions of nearby residents, or to highway safety, I have found that the development fails to respect the established character and appearance of the area, with consequential harm, bringing it into conflict with the relevant policies of the development plan and the Framework. The benefits identified, such as they are, are not sufficient in this instance to outweigh the identified harm. On balance, therefore, I conclude that the appeal should not succeed.
Paragraph 14 · Source page 3