Rutland County Council appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in Rutland?
See the local design concerns in the selected examples and the limits of the allowed comparison.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 15 of 30
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 3
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 11
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 15
- of 15 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: Rutland LPA (52.660771, −0.654639). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Rutland County Council appeal findings
Massing, stone and traditional details in Rutland
The selected examples do not show every result type in the matched local set, and the selected allowed extract gives only its conclusion.
Counted against appeals
Where Rutland extensions and materials harmed character
Side extension and surroundings
The extract concludes that the side extension would harm the host property and surrounding area.
Publicly visible elevations
For the front porch, the conclusion found harm to the surrounding area and cited local-style rubble stone for elevations visible from public places.
Massing and traditional details
One extract says the extensions had an overcomplicated, dominant appearance because of their massing and design. Another concludes that proposed design and materials detracted from a traditional building in a conservation area.
Helped or needed
Allowed Rutland extension: no character harm
No harmful effect found
For the two-storey extension, the selected extract concludes there would be no harmful effect on the surrounding area’s character and appearance.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify harm to your building, the area, or both?
- Are publicly visible elevations expected to use a particular local material?
- Does it identify massing, dominant appearance, design or materials as harmful?
Appeals 87428 and 81654 also involve a conservation area, listed building or living conditions. 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
29 September 2021 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
two storey extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Accordingly, the proposal would not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The proposal would accord with Policy CS19 of the [name] 2011, Policy SP15 of the Rutland Site Allocations and Policies Development Plan Document 2014, the Rutland Supplementary Planning Document Extensions to Dwellings 2015 and the Framework which seeks all new development to contribute positively to local distinctiveness and expect to meet requirements for good design.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
4 September 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
two storey side extension (with the first-floor element to be flush with the 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 extension would harm the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. This is contrary to Policy CS19 of the Rutland Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document 2011 (CS), Policy SP15 of the Rutland Local Plan Site Allocations and Policies Development Plan Document 2014 (DPD) and Policy COT H5 of the Cottesmore Neighbourhood Plan (NP). Collectively, these policies require design that responds positively to local distinctiveness and the character of the area; and that extensions respect the scale and character of the host building. It would also be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which requires high quality development that is sympathetic to local character and the surrounding built environment.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2
8 March 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a front porch extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue relevant to this appeal is the effect of the development upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude that the proposed development would have an adverse effect upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The proposed development would therefore conflict with the requirements of Policy BW6 of the Barrowden and Wakerley Neighbourhood Plan (2019). Amongst other matters, this seeks to ensure that new elevations visible from the public realm are constructed from local-style rubble stone.
Paragraph 15 · Source page 2
15 April 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
replacement of existing wooden windows with UPVC woodgrain flush casement windows. Replacement of existing wooden front and back doors with composite doors.
Issue identified by the Inspector
I consider the main issues to be the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the Wing Conservation Area and the setting of [address], a [name] listed building.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In reaching my conclusion, I have had regard to all matters raised. In my opinion, due to the design and materials proposed, I consider that the proposal would unacceptably detract from the traditional design of the host building, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the setting of [address], but this would be less than substantial harm as set out in the Framework.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2
16 December 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as the ‘Proposed front porch, two storey side extension, additional onsite parking and widening of the existing vehicle access.’
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposal upon: • The character and appearance of the existing building and the surrounding locality; and • The living conditions of the existing, future and surrounding occupiers.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In conclusion of this matter, the proposed extensions would not be a suitable architectural approach as a result of their massing, design and overcomplicated and dominant appearance. The proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the existing building, and would not reinforce the positive characteristics of local distinctiveness of the locality. The proposed scheme would therefore be contrary to RCS Policy CS19, RSAP Policy SP5 and SP15, and NP Policy NL7 as described previously.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 3