South Hams District Council appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in South Hams?
See the local concerns about character and appearance, and the limited 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
- 65 of 91
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 27
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 38
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 61
- of 65 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 Hams LPA (50.354789, −3.807543). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
South Hams District Council appeal findings
South Hams structures and extensions: character and appearance
The selected examples lean more toward dismissed appeals than the matched local set. The allowed extract gives only a conclusion.
Counted against appeals
Garden structures and extensions judged harmful
Open landscape setting
The replacement garden room was found incompatible with its open landscape setting and harmful to the area's character and appearance.
Extensions harmed the appeal building
The extracts record only the conclusion that the extensions harmed the appeal building. The sun room replacement extract also says the surrounding area was harmed.
Wood-framed shed harmed the area
The decision concludes that the wood-framed shed would harm the area's character and appearance. Its extract does not identify the feature responsible.
Helped or needed
The allowed front-garden store
No conflict with local character
For the cedar bin and bike store, the Inspector found no conflict with standards requiring respect for the surrounding area's scale and character. The extract gives no further reasons.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify harm to the building, surroundings or both?
- Is the site described as an open landscape setting?
- Does the refusal explain the feature said to harm character?
Some selected extracts give only conclusions, and an extension example focuses on the appeal building rather than the wider area. 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
8 March 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described on the application form as ‘erection of a western red cedar clad bin and bike store to front garden of property’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the appeal development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
As such, I find no conflict with Policy DEV20 of the Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan 2014-2034 adopted March 2019 and Policy SALC B1 of the Salcombe Neighbourhood Development Plan 2018-2034 which require good standards of design which respect the scale and character of the surrounding area.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
7 May 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the erection of a replacement ancillary garden room/summerhouse.
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
Overall, the proposed development would result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the area and would not be compatible with its open landscape setting. The proposed development would be contrary to Policies DEV20 and DEV23 of the Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan (2014-2034). Collectively, these policies seek to ensure that proposals maintain an area’s distinctive sense of place and scenic quality with regard to the pattern of local development in terms of location, style, siting, visual impact, scale, massing, height, materials, detailing, character and landscape features.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
4 November 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the erection of wood framed bespoke shed (part retrospective).
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I, therefore, find that the proposal before me would harm the character and appearance of the area. This would be in conflict with those aims of Policies SPT1, DEV20 and DEV23 of the Plymouth & South West Devon Joint Local Plan 2014-2034 that seek to ensure that development contributes positively to the townscape and respects local distinctiveness.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
29 January 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
removal of sun room and replacement with two storey extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the appeal building and the surrounding area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons, the proposed development would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the appeal building and the surrounding area. Consequently, the proposal conflicts with Policies DEV20 and DEV23 of the Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan 2014 – 2034, which require development to be well designed, locally distinctive and respectful of landscape character.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
19 June 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
single storey extension to existing dwelling.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the appeal building.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the appeal building. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policies TTV29 and DEV20 of the Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan 2014 – 2034 (LP) and Policy KNP2 of the Kingston Neighbourhood Plan 2019 – 2034 (NP), which collectively seek, in part, to protect and improve the quality of the built environment, respect local character, safeguard local distinctiveness, and extend buildings in an appropriate manner in terms of scale. The proposal would also fail to accord with the guidance contained within the SPD and the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘[name]: [address] Buildings, [name] and 2 Application reference 1866/23/[name] (the ‘[name]), insofar as they seek to ensure that development maintains the standards and qualities of the building’s character.
Paragraph 11 · Source pages 2, 3