St Helens Council appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in St Helens?
See the conclusions inspectors reached on extensions and fences affecting area character in selected local appeals.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 22 of 31
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 7
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 13
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 21
- of 22 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: St. Helens LPA (53.459501, −2.723637). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
St Helens Council appeal findings
Fences and extensions against St Helens area character
The selected extracts give conclusions, not the earlier analysis, so their detailed site comparisons are missing.
Counted against appeals
Fences and extensions judged out of place
Reduced fence remained out of place
The inspector concluded that the shiplap fence significantly harmed the area’s character and appearance despite its reduced height.
Extension scale and design conflicted
The inspector concluded that the front, rear and side extensions did not respect the dwelling and surrounding area in scale and design.
Replacement fence conflicted with its setting
The inspector concluded that the replacement fence would conflict with requirements to maintain character and appearance and respect its local setting.
Helped or needed
Fences and extensions found not harmful
Guidance conflict did not undermine objectives
For the corner-plot side extension, the inspector concluded that a technical guidance conflict did not undermine the guidance’s objectives.
Boundary fence and gate caused no harm
For the boundary fence and gate, the extract records only the conclusion that it would not harm the area’s character and appearance.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does your refusal call a fence incongruous or out of place?
- Does it identify scale or design as harming your dwelling or area?
- Does it explain why guidance conflict undermines its objectives?
The selected St Helens examples do not reproduce every factual comparison in the full decisions. 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
2 examples
29 March 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a single storey side extension and side boundary fence.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons, I conclude that the proposal would not result in material harm to the character and appearance of the area. As such, the proposal would accord with Policies LPD01 and LPD04 of the [site address] Borough Local Plan Up To 2037, which require proposals to respect and / or enhance the character and appearance of the existing dwelling or the surrounding area. Despite the technical conflict with the SPD, the proposal would not undermine its objectives in relation to single storey side extensions on corner plots.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
1 February 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the erection of a boundary fence and gate.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in the 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
Therefore, I consider the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area. Consequently, it would accord with Policy CP1 of the [site address] Local Plan Core Strategy (adopted October 2012) and Policy GEN8 of the [site address] Unitary Development Plan (adopted July 1998) which require developments to respect and enhance the character and appearance of the local area.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
12 October 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a shiplap fence above an existing low level 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 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the above reasons, and notwithstanding the reduction in the height of the fence, I conclude that as a whole it has caused significant harm to the character and appearance of the area. It is seen as an incongruous and out of place addition in its immediate setting and does not therefore accord with the design, character and appearance requirements of policy LPD04 of the LP or chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
8 March 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
single storey front and rear, and two storey side extensions to a dwellinghouse.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore, I conclude that the proposal would conflict with Policy LPD04 of the St Helens Borough Local Plan up to 2037 that requires, among other things, that extensions respect the character and appearance of the dwelling and the surrounding area including in terms of scale and design. It would also conflict with the guidance in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document Householder Development in relation to front extensions.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
29 November 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
replace existing 1.82 brick post/timber fence with 1.82 m fence constructed using upvc posts and timber panels. Existing fence replaced due to materials previously used rotting after numerous replacements (post replacements) due to poor drainage outside of property. Alternative materials used from existing fence to mitigate risk of fence posts rotting and causing potential damage to people/property.
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.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would therefore conflict with [site address] Local Plan Core Strategy policy CP1 which seeks to ensure that proposals will maintain or enhance the overall character and appearance of the local environment. It would fail to comply with policy GEN8 of the [site address] Unitary Development Plan which requires development to respect its local setting. It would also conflict with the objective in the National Planning Policy Framework of achieving well designed places.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2