Rushmoor Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in Rushmoor?
See how selected Rushmoor dismissals described visual gaps, building lines and design, and which refusal facts to compare.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 6 of 9
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 0
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 6
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 5
- of 6 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: Rushmoor LPA (51.273451, −0.767464). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Rushmoor Borough Council appeal findings
Rushmoor visual gaps, building lines and design
The matched local set has no allowed appeal. The selected examples are all dismissals, and several give only a final conclusion rather than the fuller assessment.
Counted against appeals
Terracing, street scenes and poor design
Terracing from a side extension
The Inspector found the side extension would harm the area’s character and appearance through a terracing effect where visual gaps contribute to that character.
Harm to the street scene
In appeal 40063, the Inspector concluded the development would harm the character and appearance of the street scene.
Poor design for three dwellings
In appeal 86550, the Inspector concluded the three-dwelling proposal would not represent good design and would harm local character and appearance.
No allowed example matched
No allowed Rushmoor comparison
This snapshot has no allowed local example for this issue.
Protect visual gaps
Appeal 49361 shows that avoiding terracing where visual gaps shape the area’s character still needed to be demonstrated.
Respect building lines
Appeal 352 shows that respect for building lines still needed to be demonstrated alongside local character and appearance.
Cover site design details
Appeal 86550 shows that consideration of surrounding uses, scale, massing, layout, landscape, materials and topography still needed to be demonstrated.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal describe a terracing effect or lost visual gap?
- Do your plans explain how the proposal respects nearby building lines?
- Do you address scale, massing, layout, materials and topography?
Appeals 86550 and 53307 also raised other issues, so only their character-and-appearance conclusions are used here. These decisions do not predict another result.
Appeal evidence examples
Read the reasoning in matched appeal decisions
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.
Dismissed appeal examples
5 examples
11 April 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a second storey side extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Overall, the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore conflict with Policy DE1 of the Rushmoor Local Plan 2014-2032 (adopted February 2019), which requires development to respect the character and appearance of the local area. It would likewise go against the aims of the Rushmoor Local Plan Home Improvements and Extensions Supplementary Planning Document (adopted February 2020), which outlines how extensions should relate well to the original building and not harm the character of the street scene, by not resulting in a terracing effect where visual gaps contribute to the character of the area.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 2
7 July 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the erection of a detached garage.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons the development would conflict with Policy DE1 of the Rushmoor Local Plan (2019), to the Rushmoor Borough Council Home Improvements and Extensions Supplementary Planning Document (2020), and to the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework. These seek, among other things to ensure that development makes a positive contribution towards improving the quality of the built environment and respects the character and appearance of the local area including respecting building lines.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
26 March 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
demolition of existing building and erect 3no. dwellings with associated development.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • whether the proposal would represent good design and its effects on the character and appearance of the area; • the effects on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at Nos 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 and [address], with particular regard to privacy and outlook; • whether the scheme would provide adequate open space for future occupiers; • whether the proposal would provide adequate parking for future occupiers; • the effects on the adjacent tree; and • the effects on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area ([name]).
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the foregoing reasons, the proposal would not represent good design and would harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to, in particular, policy DE1 of the Local Plan which seeks to ensure that development is a high quality of design that respects the character and appearance of the local area and demonstrates that the wider context has been considered through analysis of surrounding uses, scale, massing, layout, landscape, materials and topography.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
2 July 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘demolition of existing outbuildings and erection of single storey ancillary accommodation annex.’
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposal on (i) the character and appearance of the area, and (ii) highway safety, with particular regard to parking.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons the proposal would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would conflict with policies DE1 and DE11 of the Rushmoor Local Plan 2019 (the LP) which require among other things, that development respects the character and appearance of the local area, and is not harmful to the character of the area in terms of relationships and integration with existing buildings and spaces and impact on the street scene.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
11 October 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
[address]
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development upon the character and appearance of the street scene.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Having regard to the above, I conclude that the development would harm the character and appearance of the street scene. The proposal, therefore, conflicts with Policy DE1 of the Rushmoor Local Plan (2014-2032). It is also contrary to guidance contained within the [name] and Extensions Supplementary Guidance February 2020. The policy and guidance, amongst other things and insofar as relevant to the proposal, requires development to respect the character and appearance of the local area.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2