Worthing Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in Worthing?
Learn what inspectors objected to locally and which facts to test against your refusal notice.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 13 of 23
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 2
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 10
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 12
- of 13 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: Worthing LPA (50.823816, −0.395338). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Worthing Borough Council appeal findings
Worthing roof forms and grey cladding
Appeal 21154 gives only a conclusion, not the earlier analysis. The selected examples have a different outcome mix from the matched local set.
Counted against appeals
Cladding and roof changes at odds
Set-back grey cladding broke uniform elevations
The visible, set-back grey cladding broke the area’s uniform elevational treatment. The Inspector found the house would appear at odds with the prevailing built form.
Longer ridge and dormer massing
The extended ridge and dormer massing departed from the existing hipped roof form, harming the building’s architectural integrity and the locality’s appearance.
Helped or needed
Replacement fence: no street-scene harm
No harm to the street scene
For the replacement boundary fence, the Inspector concluded it did not harm the area’s character, appearance or street scene.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify a visible, set-back side treatment?
- Would your ridge extension and dormer change a hipped roof form?
- Does the notice identify a nearby pattern your proposal would break?
Appeal 28652’s extract covers neighbours’ living conditions rather than the area-character issue. 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
29 September 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
new boundary fence to replace a mix of boundary wall and previous fence panels.
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 reasons given, I find the fencing does not cause harm to the character or appearance of the area or the street scene of which it forms a part. Consequently, it is compliant with saved Policy H16 of the Worthing Local Plan 2003 which provides criteria for alterations to dwellings including that their design should be satisfactory in relation to any predominant characteristics of the area. The development also complies with Policy 16 of the [name] 2011 which, among other things, requires good design which takes account of local physical characteristics. The development also adheres to the design objectives set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
3 June 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
cladding to north and west elevations at first floor level.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the property and surrounding area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The grey coloured cladding on the side elevation would be prominently visible when viewed from [address], albeit mainly from short localised views. The visual impact of the cladding on the side elevation would be exacerbated by it being set back from the front elevation. This would create a discordant form of development that would not integrate well with the character and appearance of the appeal dwelling within its specific context and localised views to it. A key prevailing characteristic of the area is the general uniformity of elevational treatment, which would be disrupted in this case by the proposed grey cladding and, in particular, its setting back on the side elevation. The appeal proposal would, therefore, result in the host dwelling appearing at odds with the prevailing built form in the area.
Paragraph 6 · Source pages 1, 2
25 October 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a loft conversion with hip to gable and rear dormer roof.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon the appeal property and the character and appearance of the locality.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The elongation of the ridge, combined with the massing of the dormer window diverts from the strong character of the existing hipped roof form of the appeal building. Taken as a whole, and in conclusion of this matter, the proposed alterations to the appeal dwelling would cause unacceptable harm to the architectural authenticity and integrity of the existing building and the character and appearance of the locality. Consequently, the proposal would be contrary to the [name] 2011 (CS) Policy 16, as well as the Worthing Local Plan 2003 (LP) saved Policy H16, which is supported by the SPG as described above; and the design related policies of the Framework.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
22 February 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a loft conversion consisting of new front gable dormer (east) and rear box dormer (west).
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the proposed development on, firstly, the character and appearance of the surrounding area, and secondly on the living conditions of adjoining occupants.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
[name] H16 and H18 of the adopted Worthing Local Plan and Policy 16 of the [name] require development to not have unacceptable harm to the amenity of local residents, and Policy DM5 of the Submission Draft Worthing Local Plan and the SPG seek similar objectives. The scale and location of the proposed rear dormer would not satisfy these requirements, and so on the second main issue I conclude there would be conflict with these policies.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2
Other appeal outcomes
1 example
6 November 2023 · Split Decision
Development described in the decision
for first floor extension and front porch.
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
I conclude, therefore, that the first floor extension would harm the character and appearance of the area and does not comply with Policy DM5 of the Worthing Borough Local Plan 2020-2036 (the Local Plan). I have also had regard to the appellant’s review of the Council’s Extending or Altering Your Home Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG). However, such guidance needs to be applied with regard to the specific circumstances of the particular case in hand. In this instance, I have found that the appeal proposal would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area and I do not consider that a lack of specific conflict with the SPG outweighs the conflict I have identified with Policy DM5 of the Local Plan. The appeal proposal would also not be consistent with Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which seeks to ensure that developments are sympathetic to local character. Finally, I am aware that no third-party objections were received for the appeal proposal. Notwithstanding this, I give this only limited weight and it does not outweigh the harm that I have identified.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 3