South Derbyshire District Council appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in South Derbyshire?
See what the selected examples show was found harmful or acceptable, and which facts to compare with your refusal notice.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 9 of 15
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 1
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 7
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 8
- of 9 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: South Derbyshire LPA (52.831058, −1.559528). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
South Derbyshire District Council appeal findings
Character findings on garages, kerbs and bungalow roofs
The selected examples have a different outcome mix from the matched local set and mostly give conclusions rather than detailed reasoning.
Counted against appeals
Where garages and kerbs caused harm
Garages found harmful
The Inspectors concluded that the garage proposals would harm the area or host property. Their decisions state that outbuildings should be in keeping with the property in scale and character.
Kerb and verge change found harmful
The Inspector concluded that extending a dropped kerb and removing a grass verge would harm the area's character and appearance.
Helped or needed
The allowed bungalow roof example
Added floor and roof not harmful
For a bungalow with an additional floor and new roof, the Inspector concluded there was no harm to the area or host property.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify harm to the area, property, or both?
- Does it say an outbuilding's scale or character is not in keeping?
- Which exact feature does the refusal say changes the area's character?
The displayed split decision is not used as an allowed or dismissed comparison. 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
27 March 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
to add an additional floor and new roof to the existing bungalow.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area and the host property itself.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that the development does not harm the character and appearance of the area and the host property itself. There is no conflict with Policies BNE1 and SD1 of the South Derbyshire Local Plan Part 1 (2016) and Policy H27 of the South Derbyshire Local Plan Part 2 (2017) which seek amongst other things to ensure developments are of well-designed responding to their context and in keeping with the host property.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
5 March 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described on the application form as “Extension of [name] ([name]) and Removal of [name]. This application seeks permission to extend the existing dropped kerb and remove a section of the grass verge at the front of the property ( [site address] , Repton, [postcode] ) to facilitate safe and unrestricted access to the full width of the existing driveway. At present, vehicular access is limited to only part of the driveway, which hinders safe manoeuvring and frequently results in vehicles partially mounting the kerb or encroaching onto the verge. This not only poses a safety risk to both pedestrians and road users but also contributes to damage to the verge, kerbing, and vehicles. The proposed works will: Enable safe and direct access to the entire width of the existing driveway; Prevent ongoing damage to the verge and kerb; Improve visibility and reduce potential risks for pedestrians and other road users; Be carried out in full accordance with local highways standards and by a contractor approved by the Highway
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that the proposed development causes harm to the character and appearance of the area. Conflict therefore arises with Policy BNE1 of the South Derbyshire Local Plan Part 1 (2016) which seeks to ensure, amongst other things, that development is well designed and responds to its context and streets are visually attractive.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 3
17 January 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a large double garage with room above.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed garage would harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to Policies S2, SD1 and BNE1 of the South Derbyshire Local Plan Part 1 (June 2016) and Policy H27 of the South Derbyshire Local Plan Part 2 (2 November 2017), which together support sustainable development that is well-designed, having regard to valued townscape characteristics, with outbuildings to be of a scale and character in keeping with the host property and not unduly detrimental to the character and appearance of the area. There would also be conflict with the Framework, which identifies good design as a key aspect of sustainable development.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
21 May 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as: Double garage.
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 the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Taking all of the above into account, the proposed garage would be harmful to the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and the area. Consequently, it would conflict with Policies S2, SD1 and BNE1 of the [site address] Local Plan Part 1 (2016) and Policy H27 of the Local Plan Part 2 (2017). Together these policies support sustainable development which is well designed and require outbuildings to be of a scale and character in keeping with the property and not be unduly detrimental to the general character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
Other appeal outcomes
1 example
26 May 2022 · Split Decision
Development described in the decision
extensions and alterations to existing dwelling including a first floor extension to create additional living space, demolition of the existing garage to construct a new detached garage with living accommodation above and the erection of a new front boundary wall.
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 2
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore find that the extension and alterations works to the existing dwelling, together with the proposed boundary wall, would not harm the character and appearance of the area and would accord with Policy H27 of the South Derbyshire Local Plan Part 2 (2017); Policy BNE1 of the South Derbyshire Local Plan Part 1 (2016) and the [name] Planning Document (2017).
Paragraph 12 · Source page 3