South Kesteven District Council appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in South Kesteven?
See the selected character findings and the nearby buildings one Inspector compared.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 34 of 48
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 12
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 22
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 24
- of 34 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 Kesteven LPA (52.854468, −0.51825). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
South Kesteven District Council appeal findings
South Kesteven building patterns and character claims
The selected examples include both outcomes, but several extracts give only a conclusion rather than detailed design analysis.
Counted against appeals
Extensions and remodelling found harmful
The whole scheme harmed the area
The Inspector concluded the whole scheme would harm the area’s character and appearance.
Remodelling harmed surrounding character
The Inspector concluded the proposed development would harm the surrounding area’s character and appearance.
Helped or needed
Linear form and nearby building comparisons
No clear local linear pattern
On a site visit, the Inspector did not find linear form an obvious local building characteristic.
Varied nearby buildings mattered
An agricultural-looking building, farmhouse and bulky farm buildings supported the finding that linear form was not ubiquitous locally.
Allowed extracts lack detailed reasons
The selected boundary-treatment and rendering extracts conclude no harm but do not identify the features assessed.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify a local pattern, rather than simply calling the proposal harmful?
- Which nearby buildings support or weaken the Council’s comparison?
- Does the notice explain how your design harms character and appearance?
The displayed boundary-treatment and rendering extracts supply conclusions only, limiting detailed comparison on this page. 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
7 May 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
alterations to boundary treatment / means of enclosure.
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 4 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons set out above, I conclude the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 15 · Source page 3
5 June 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a two-storey side extension to the existing dwelling with a single storey glazed link.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development upon the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The local planning authority (LPA) considers that the linear form of the existing dwelling is an integral element of its character and appearance and which would be unacceptably harmed by the proposed addition. However, on my site visit I did not find that such a linear form was an obvious characteristic of buildings in the locality. The adjoining agricultural looking building and the two storey original farmhouse next to it cannot be said to be characterised in this way, and I was also able to observe large, bulky agricultural buildings in the vicinity. While the appeal building is attractive and well designed, I do not find that its linear form is such a ubiquitous or traditional form of development in the area so as to be a necessary constraint to any further development.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
21 November 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
render to the front of the property and down the drive side walls. Change the roof tiles to concrete anthracite grey.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Taking all of the above into account, I find that the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the area and would not be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework or to Policy DE1 of the South Kesteven Local Plan (2022), which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
2 examples
30 April 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as a two storey side and rear extension and reskinning existing brickwork.
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
The scheme, therefore, taken as a whole, would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. As such, it would be contrary to Policy DE1 of the South Kesteven District Council Local Plan 2020. Amongst other things, this policy seeks to ensure that development makes a positive contribution to local distinctiveness, reinforcing local identity, and does not have an adverse impact on the street scene, as well as being appropriate in material in the context of the area.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
1 April 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
proposed part demolition of house & garage with proposed two storey extension, new garage and remodelling.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area, contrary to Local Plan Policy DE1. This seeks to ensure development, amongst other matters, makes a positive contribution to the character of the area, which reinforces local identity.
Paragraph 15 · Source page 3