Cheshire West and Chester Council appeal evidence
Refused over permitted development in Cheshire West and Chester?
See the selected GPDO failures and the limits of the available 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
- 8 of 158
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 2
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 6
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 6
- of 8 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 West and Chester LPA (53.200213, −2.735805). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Cheshire West and Chester Council appeal findings
Class AA work gaps and Class Q condition conflict
The selected examples have a different outcome mix from the matched local set, and the allowed extract gives only a conclusion.
Counted against appeals
Class AA work gaps and Class Q conflicts
A removal condition conflicted with the scheme
Keeping the appeal building conflicted with a condition requiring its removal, so the Inspector found conflict with the GPDO.
Full engineering works were not detailed
Without details of all works needed for the extra storey, the Inspector could not exclude rebuilding or operations beyond those reasonably necessary.
Appearance was either unassessed or harmful
One proposal was found not to be permitted development, so amenity and appearance were not assessed. Another height increase was found harmful to external appearance.
Helped or needed
Allowed Class Q conclusion only
Class Q requirements were found satisfied
The Inspector concluded that the proposal satisfied Class Q and granted prior approval. The extract does not explain which facts led to that conclusion.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does a condition require an existing building to be removed?
- Do your drawings show every engineering work needed for the extra storey?
- Does the refusal find a height increase harmful to external appearance?
Some selected examples also address appearance or amenity, which this GPDO page does not compare in detail. 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
8 July 2021 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
No verified development description was available for this example.
Issue identified by the Inspector
There is no definition of the term ‘undesirable’ in the GPDO. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that a reasonable ordinary dictionary meaning of the term should be applied. Thus, ‘undesirable’ reflects that it would be “harmful or objectionable”1.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons outlined above, I conclude that the proposal satisfies the requirements of Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the GPDO. The appeal is therefore allowed, and prior approval is granted.
Paragraph 20 · Source page 4
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
27 June 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
to extend the existing main part of the building at first floor level with another floor.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the proposed development would be granted planning permission by Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended (the GPDO).
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
As the proposal would not be permitted development, there is no need for me to consider the prior approval matters relating to the impact on the amenity of adjoining premises and the external appearance of the dwellinghouse.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
22 May 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
prior approval for conversion of former agricultural barn to 3 no. residential dwellings (C3 use class) and associated building operations within the residential curtilage.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The appeal falls to be considered as to whether the scheme meets the requirements of paragraph Q.1 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(England) Order 2015 (the GPDO) such that it would constitute development permitted under Class Q, subject to the prior approval of certain matters. For permitted development under Class Q(a), namely a change of use from an agricultural building to a Class C3 dwellinghouse, prior approval is required in respect to a number of matters.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Given the description of the development and the removal of the appeal building from the proposed plans, its retention is contrary to the plans condition imposed on a previously granted planning permission. Therefore, the proposal conflicts with the terms of the GPDO. A condition specifically requiring the removal of the building is not necessary for this conflict to occur.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
7 August 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
construction of vertical extension to create additional storey.
Issue identified by the Inspector
Based on the above, the main issues in this appeal are: • whether the proposed development meets the requirements of Class AA, Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO such that it would constitute permitted development; and • if found to be permitted development, the effect of the proposal on the external appearance of the dwellinghouse.
Paragraph 6 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
Overall, in the absence of detailed information as to the full extent of works that are required to facilitate the additional storey, I am unable to conclude that the engineering operations do not go beyond those reasonably necessary and do not amount to a rebuilding of the host dwelling. I therefore cannot find the scheme to comply with paragraph AA. (b) of the GPDO. Accordingly, the proposal does not benefit from the permitted development rights under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA of the Order.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 2
8 April 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
increase the height of the existing dwelling.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are whether the proposal would be granted planning permission by Article 3 and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA of the GPDO and the effect of the proposed development on the external appearance of the dwellinghouse.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that the proposal would not be granted planning permission by Article 3 and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA of the GPDO and the development would have a harmful effect on the external appearance of the dwellinghouse.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2