Worcester City Council appeal evidence
Refused over area character and appearance in Worcester?
See what the displayed examples say about character harm and extensions found not harmful.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 20 of 27
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 3
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 15
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 18
- of 20 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: Worcester LPA (52.196708, −2.211317). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Worcester City Council appeal findings
Worcester extension design and area character
The displayed examples include relatively more allowed decisions than the matched local set, and most extracts give conclusions rather than detailed reasoning.
Counted against appeals
Dismissed Worcester extensions: character harm
First-floor side-extension spacing
The inspector found the two-storey side extension harmful. The extract says side extensions normally need a first-floor setback and space from the shared boundary.
Harm to house and street scene
The inspector concluded the two-storey side extension would harm the house itself and the wider street scene.
Area character harm was the conclusion
The extract gives only the conclusion that the proposal would harm the area’s character and appearance.
Helped or needed
Allowed Worcester extensions: no character harm
Guidance departure was not decisive
The extract gives the conclusion that, despite departing from guidance, the proposal met the stated design aim of integrating with its surroundings.
No harm to property or surroundings
The extract gives the conclusion that the front extension would not harm the appeal property or surrounding area.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal say how your extension would harm the house, street scene or area?
- For a side extension, does it address first-floor setback and shared-boundary space?
- Does the refusal say why your design fails to complement surrounding buildings?
The displayed Worcester examples concern extensions only, so they cannot show how a different proposal was assessed. 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
17 February 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
‘Proposed two storey side and single storey rear extension (resubmission of application 21/00182/HP)’.
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
For these reasons, I find that the appeal proposal would not follow the guidance of the SPD but it would not conflict with the aims of policy SPD21 to achieve high design quality which integrates effectively with its surroundings.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 3
10 February 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
for a single storey extension to the front elevation.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the appeal property and the surrounding area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons given above the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the appeal property and the surrounding area. Therefore, I find no conflict with Policy SWDP 21 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan, 2016, in so far as it seeks to promote high quality design which complements the character of an area and responds to surrounding buildings, as well as accordance with policies of the National Planning Policy Framework, 2024, that pertain to the achievement of well-designed places.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
1 March 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
for a two storey side and single storey rear extension.
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
I conclude the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, I find conflict with the relevant provisions of Policy SWDP 21 of the Plan and the SPD, both of which seek to ensure a high standard of design which does not harm the character or appearance of the area.
Paragraph 13 · Source pages 2, 3
8 November 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
erection of a 2 storey side extension.
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 conflict with the part of Policy SWDP21 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan which requires new development to be of high quality design, integrate effectively with the surroundings, complement the character of the area and be of a scale and massing that is appropriate to the setting of the site. It would also conflict with the [name] Planning Document which normally requires that side extensions should be set back and be at least one metre off the shared boundary at first floor level.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
19 November 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
two storey side extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
I consider that the main issue in this case is its effect on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the house itself and the wider street scene, contrary to development plan policy SWDP21 and the advice in the SPD.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2