South Ribble Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over area character and appearance in South Ribble?
See what selected examples say about rooflines, extensions and 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
- 7 of 14
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 1
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 6
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 6
- of 7 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 Ribble LPA (53.728139, −2.710214). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
South Ribble Borough Council appeal findings
Rooflines, extensions and South Ribble streets
The displayed examples have a different outcome mix from the matched local set. The allowed extract gives a conclusion, not design details.
Counted against appeals
Street-scene and dwelling harm
Roof changes and street-scene harm
Both selected roof-related schemes were concluded to cause unacceptable harm to the area’s character and appearance. Their extracts identify height and scale as street-scene factors.
Side extension harmed dwelling and area
The Inspector concluded that a first-floor side extension harmed both the host dwelling and surrounding area.
Personal circumstances did not outweigh harm
The Inspector concluded that personal circumstances did not outweigh harm to the host dwelling and area.
Helped or needed
Allowed housing and area character
Housing found not harmful
The Inspector concluded that the housing proposal would not harm the area’s character and appearance. The extract gives no design explanation.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify height, scale, massing or street-scene harm?
- Does it say the host dwelling or surrounding area would be harmed?
- What evidence directly addresses the harm named in your refusal?
Some dismissed examples also cover neighbour effects or a varied condition, so only their character-and-appearance conclusions are used. 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
25 March 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
residential development for up to 23 dwellings together with associated infrastructure.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Accordingly, I conclude that the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area. As such, it would accord with Policy 17 of the [name] (CS), July 2012, or Policy G17 of the South Ribble Local Plan (LP), July 2015, which seek to ensure that new development takes account of the character and appearance of the local area and does not have a detrimental impact on landscape features. It would also accord with paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).
Paragraph 13 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
14 December 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a 2 storey extension to side and porch extension to front of existing semi-detached property.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and street scene.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In this case, and for the reasons set out, a refusal of planning permission is a proportionate and necessary approach to the legitimate aim of ensuring that significant harm is not caused to the character and appearance of the area and host dwelling. Indeed, the protection of the public interest cannot be achieved by means that are less interfering of the human rights of the family members. Therefore, while I acknowledge the personal circumstances of the appellant, I conclude that these are not matters which outweigh the harm that is caused by the development.
Paragraph 14 · Source page 3
4 April 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the raising of the ridge height to form a loft conversion with front and rear dormers.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in the appeal are the effect of the proposed development on (i) the character and appearance of the area and (ii) the living conditions of the occupiers of a neighbouring dwelling, 20 The Pines.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude that the development would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area. As such it would be contrary to Policy G17(a) of the South Ribble Borough Council Local Plan (adopted July 2015)(Local Plan) which requires, amongst other matters, for development not to have a detrimental impact on the street scene by virtue of design, height and scale. It would also be contrary to guidance contained within the SPD in relation to the design and form of dormers and roof extensions.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
17 January 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘first floor – up and over bedroom/s extension attached to side of linked detached dwelling above existing ground floor single storey extension on side’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons, I conclude that the appeal scheme would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. It would therefore conflict with Policy G17 of the South Ribble Borough Council Local Plan (2015) which seeks to ensure, amongst other matters, that new development has regard to existing buildings and the street scene in its design, scale and massing.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
25 November 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the raising of the ridge height to provide first floor living accommodation, single storey rear extension and the erection of a detached garage without complying with a condition attached to planning permission 07/2021/00857/HOH, dated the 29 September 2021.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in the appeal is the effect of varying the approved plan, and thus the affected condition of the proposed development on (i) the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring property with particular reference to outlook and (ii) the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude that the proposal would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area. As such it would conflict with Policies B1 and G17 of the Local Plan which requires development not to have a detrimental impact on the existing streetscene by virtue of, amongst other things, height and scale.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 3