Shropshire Council appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in Shropshire?
Learn what the selected Shropshire examples say about character and appearance before your next step.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 84 of 135
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 22
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 62
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 65
- of 84 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: Shropshire LPA (52.635421, −2.734141). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Shropshire Council appeal findings
Why some Shropshire additions looked out of keeping
Allowed extracts 80003 and 40805 give conclusions only, so they do not reveal the supporting design analysis.
Counted against appeals
What made additions look out of keeping
Bulk and lost features jarred
The garage roof extension was found visually discordant because of its size, bulk, design, materials and lost architectural features.
Not sufficiently subservient
The same proposal was not sufficiently subservient and was found to harm the building and surrounding area.
Front extension harmed the area
The inspector concluded that the front extension would harm the character and appearance of the area.
Helped or needed
What the allowed conclusions show
Side extension was acceptable
The inspector concluded that the side and rear extension had an acceptable effect on the area's character and appearance.
Garage additions caused no harm
The inspector concluded that this proposal would not harm the area's character or appearance.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify size, bulk, design, materials or lost features?
- Does it say the addition is visually discordant or not subservient?
- Does it distinguish harm to the building from harm to the area?
Only 25280 gives detailed design reasoning, while the other selected extracts state conclusions. 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
19 November 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
single storey side/rear extension to property.
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
I therefore find that the proposed development would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would comply with Policy CS6 of the Core Strategy1 and with Policy MD2 of the SAMDev Plan2 which collectively provide that, amongst other things, all development must be appropriate in scale and design taking into account the local context and character.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
25 October 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
proposed extensions to form garage and utility room, porch and covered area.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore, the proposed development would not harm the character or appearance of the area. Consequently, the proposal would accord with Policy CS6 of the Shropshire Local Development Framework: [name] and Policy MD2 of the Shropshire Council Site Allocations and Management of Development Plan. These seek to ensure development proposals respond appropriately to the form and layout of existing development.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
13 April 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a front extension to a domestic house to create an office space on ground floor and an additional bedroom on the first floor.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Accordingly, the proposal would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore conflict with Policy CS6 of the Shropshire Local Development Framework: [name] (March 2011) and Policy MD2 of the Shropshire Council Site Allocations and Management of Development (SAMDev) Plan (December 2015) which together seek to ensure that developments take into account local context and character and respond appropriately to the form and layout of existing development, amongst other things.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
26 March 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
garage conversion and extension to create annex.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I find that the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would conflict with policy CS6 of the [name] and policy MD2 of the Shropshire Site Allocations and Management of Development (SAMDev) Plan which together require proposals to respect local context and character.
Paragraph 6 · Source pages 1, 2
15 December 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
formation of first floor accommodation above garage to include raising the roof height, insertion of rooflights. Construction of ground floor link.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the building and surrounding area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Drawing all the above points together, the proposed upward extension of the garage, by reason of its size, bulk, design and materials coupled with the loss of a number of architectural features, would be a visually discordant addition to the property that would not be in keeping with the prevailing local vernacular and would not be sufficiently subservient. Consequently, the proposal would materially alter the building and cause unacceptable harm to its character and appearance, to that of the host property and to the surrounding area.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 3