Malvern Hills District Council appeal evidence
Refused over area character and appearance in Malvern Hills?
Learn which fence and design details drew objections, and which material and form details supported the allowed examples.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 31 of 59
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 11
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 20
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 20
- of 31 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: Malvern Hills LPA (52.182966, −2.345017). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Malvern Hills District Council appeal findings
Fence height, cladding and rural garage design
The selected examples contain relatively more allowed appeals than the matched local set. Appeal 77392's displayed extract gives only a conclusion.
Counted against appeals
Fence concerns beside public areas
A 1.8m fence beside a footpath
The decision concluded that the development would harm the street scene. The cited design guide describes close-boarded fencing beside public areas as visually unacceptable.
Fence siting and layout
The decision concluded that the fence harmed the area's character. It cited a design requirement for siting and layout to complement local character.
Helped or needed
Materials and form that helped
Plain rural form and materials
The larger garage was accepted because its plain design and timber, brick and tile finishes fitted buildings expected in rural locations.
Painted brick linked to the host building
Replacing dark timber cladding with white painted brick was found to improve how the building related to its host building.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify a public footpath or street-facing boundary?
- Does it say how fence height, siting or materials harm the street scene?
- Does it identify a mismatch with the host building or rural surroundings?
Appeals 84091, 40627 and 75489 cover a fence, alteration and garage, so may differ from your proposal. 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
3 examples
29 August 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a new roof and side extension to garage.
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
Although the appeal proposal would result in a building larger than the existing fire damaged garage, it would not, in my opinion, be at odds or out of context with its rural surroundings. Its design is relatively plain and simple and reflects the character and appearance of buildings that one would normally expect to find in rural locations. The use of timber cladding with brickwork and small plain tiles would also be in keeping with the countryside environment.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
20 October 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
No verified development description was available for this example.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In terms of materials and design, the alteration from dark timber cladding to white painted brick would be a great improvement and allow the building to better relate to its host building. As such the proposal, on balance, would be able to meet the requirements of Policy SWDP21 and the requirements within the Council’s Design SPD.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 3
3 October 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
garage/workshop building.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I have found that the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area and would accord with the development plan read as a whole. The appeal is therefore allowed, subject to the conditions set out above.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
2 examples
9 February 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
for the removal of the existing 4.2m hedge located next to pedestrian footpath and replaced with a 1m high hedge with a 1.8m high timber fence to sit 1.5m away from the existing footpath.
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
The South Worcestershire Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document, (the SPD) 2018, advises that only in exceptional circumstances will built boundary treatments over one metre in height be appropriate adjacent to a public highway. It also states that materials of boundary treatments should always complement the character of the neighbourhood, and that expanses of close boarded fencing bordering public areas are visually unacceptable, having a negative impact on the street scene and public realm. For the reasons given above, the development would harm the character and appearance of the street scene, and would be contrary to advice in the SPD.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
26 October 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
retrospective application for erection of a fence.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The development would harm the character and appearance of the area and therefore would conflict with the part of Policy SWDP21 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan which expects new development to be of a high design quality that integrates effectively with its surroundings and that the siting and layout should reflect the characteristics of the site and must complement the character of the area.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2