Cheshire East Council appeal evidence
Refused over permitted development in Cheshire East?
A quick guide to the local appeal examples and facts to compare with 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
- 7 of 211
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 5
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 2
- 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: Cheshire East LPA (53.174025, −2.374643). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Cheshire East Council appeal findings
Cheshire East GPDO Class A and AA cases
The selected examples have a different allowed-to-dismissed mix from the matched local set; the displayed dismissal gives only its GPDO conclusion.
Counted against appeals
Rear extension outside Class A
Class A conclusion against extension
For the proposed rear extension, the Inspector concluded that it was not permitted development under GPDO Part 1, Class A.
Helped or needed
What helped under Class AA
Set-back bungalow reduced road impact
Appeal 5473 found that a lower, set-back bungalow, nearby trees and a large barn kept the added storey from appearing overly conspicuous from the road.
Extra storey size was not enough
Appeal 5473 says a materially larger bungalow was an intended Class AA result, so size alone did not justify withholding prior approval.
Most Class AA limits were agreed
In appeal 41616, the proposal was accepted as meeting the listed Class AA restrictions except AA.1(d), and the Inspector saw no reason to differ.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify the exact GPDO class and restriction said to fail?
- For a new storey, is the house lower or set back from the road?
- Have you checked every relevant Class A or Class AA restriction?
Appeal 63258 concerns a condition removing GPDO rights, so it is an edge-of-scope example. 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
4 examples
18 April 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a first floor extension built off original masonry forming the footprint of the original dwelling (bungalow).
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this appeal is whether prior approval should be granted, having particular regard to paragraph AA.2 (3)(a)(ii) of the GPDO and the external appearance of the dwellinghouse.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Accordingly, on this main issue, I conclude that prior approval should be granted. 1 GPDO Class AA and “[name]”: CAB Housing Ltd, Beis Noeh Ltd & [name] v SSLUHC [2022] EWHC 208 (Admin)
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2
2 November 2021 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
additional storey and remodelling of the external elevations and internal arrangements.
Issue identified by the Inspector
Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA of the GPDO permits the enlargement of a dwellinghouse consisting of one storey by the construction of one additional storey, together with any engineering operations reasonably necessary for the purpose of that construction. Development is permitted under Class AA subject to certain limitations and conditions, including the requirement that the developer applies for prior approval to the local planning authority.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
By adding another storey, the building would be materially larger than the existing bungalow, but this is an intended consequence of the permitted development right under Class AA so would not, on its own, provide a reason to withhold prior approval. The additional height would result in the property being more visible within the streetscene, but due to its position below and set back from the road, the proposed house would not appear overly prominent. The well treed character of the area immediately surrounding the site would be retained, and built form would continue to be dominated by the large red brick barn immediately opposite, which fronts directly onto the road.
Paragraph 9 · Source pages 2, 3
22 January 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
single storey side extension and alterations without complying with a condition attached to planning permission Ref 02/1715P, dated 2 October 2002.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The reasons for condition 3 are given to be the nature of the site, policy, and amenity implications. Although not specified in the decision notice, it is evident from the appeal submissions that the policy reason relates to the need to protect the Green Belt. The planning officer’s report from the original permission (OR) indicates that the amenity reason was linked to an earlier permission to convert the adjacent barn to a dwelling. That permission was never implemented, and there are no other residences nearby, so amenity concerns no longer form a reason to restrict permitted development rights.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Permitted development rights under Part 1 Class A would allow for single storey extensions to be added, within the limitations set out in the legislation. The scale and height of development would be controlled, and such extensions could only be added to the back or side of the property. The site is surrounded by fields, so the visual impact of such development would be limited, and any development here would be seen in the context of the existing buildings on the site. The Council has provided no clear justification to remove permitted development rights under Class A.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 3
8 November 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
prior approval for the construction of one additional storey to the existing dwelling, to increase the height to a maximum height of 8.62 metres.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the proposal is permitted development.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The GPDO states that development is not permitted by Class AA where it falls within descriptions as set out in sub-paragraphs AA.1 (a) to (k). It is common ground that the proposals accord with all of the above sub-paragraphs with the exception of sub-paragraph (d) and I have no reason to disagree with that
Paragraph 5 · Source pages 1, 2
Dismissed appeal examples
1 example
1 October 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
proposed single storey extension to rear of original dwelling.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the proposed single storey rear extension would be permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, as amended.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Consequently, the proposal would not be permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, as amended.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2