South Holland District Council appeal evidence
Refused over area character in South Holland?
See how selected local examples treated fencing, open strips, planting and set-backs.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 32 of 38
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 9
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 23
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 19
- of 32 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 Holland LPA (52.797594, −0.032177). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
South Holland District Council appeal findings
Fencing and street openness in South Holland
The selected dismissed examples give conclusions, not the detailed steps behind them, so they show the harm found but not every feature that led to it.
Counted against appeals
Why fences and extensions were harmful
Fence failed character requirements
The fencing and gate proposal was concluded not to meet design, character and appearance requirements.
Extension harmed surrounding character
The two-storey extension was concluded to cause unacceptable harm to the surrounding area’s character and appearance.
Helped or needed
Features that preserved street openness
Open strip softened new fencing
A remaining strip between the fence and footpath kept separation from the public realm and matched the open strip opposite.
Set-back and planting retained spaciousness
A set-back position and soft landscaping largely preserved spaciousness and the street’s semi-verdant character.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify how your fencing or extension harms the street?
- Would a set-back or planting preserve the space seen from the road?
- Is there an open strip beside the boundary that separates homes from the footpath?
These selected South Holland examples cover only their stated proposals, and the dismissed extracts give conclusions without fuller reasoning. 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
3 examples
12 June 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a domestic garage.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude therefore that it would not result in harm to the character and appearance of the area and would accord with development plan policies 2 and 3 of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036 (adopted 2019) which together seek to ensure that proposals take into account considerations such as quality of design and the impact on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
5 May 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘incorporation of land into residential curtilage and erection of domestic wooden shed and associated fencing’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
The proposed fencing would be aligned to extend the garden and enclose the shed. While this would result in a substantial length of fencing, it would be comparable in height and extent to that already enclosing the site. The realignment would be more apparent in views from the street and would reduce the amount of open space along Eastlands. However, a residual strip of land between the fence and the footpath would remain, providing adequate separation between the built form and the public realm. This would be similar in width to the open strip on the opposite side of the road. Consequently, the proposal would not be out of keeping with the prevailing character and appearance of the area, where the mirrored presence of open space forms part of its character. It would therefore continue to provide a welcoming entrance to Eastlands without appearing oppressive or causing undue harm to its character or appearance.
Paragraph 8 · Source pages 2, 3
11 March 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
No verified development description was available for this example.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Taking the above matters into account, I acknowledge that the proposal would result in a modest change to the street’s composition. However, the sense of spaciousness would be largely preserved, and the proposed soft landscaping and set back position would assist in retaining its semi‐verdant character. I therefore conclude that the development would have an acceptable effect on the area’s character and appearance.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
2 examples
5 June 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the erection of boundary fencing around the curtilage and the erection of a boundary gate.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development upon the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore, I conclude that the development does not accord with the design, character and appearance requirements of policies 2 and 3 of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2019, or with chapter 12 of the Framework which also stresses the importance of, and need for, good design which reflects the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 16 · Source page 3
23 July 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘two storey extension and internal alterations’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Consequently, the proposal would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Accordingly, it would conflict with Policies 2 and 3 of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan (2019) (SELLP) which require development to respect local character with regard to its size, design and layout. The proposal would also be at odds with paragraphs 131, 135 and 139 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). These seek development that is of good design, sympathetic to the local character, and for development that is not well designed to be refused.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2