Wychavon District Council appeal evidence
Refused over area character and appearance in Wychavon?
See the design comments in the selected local examples, then compare them 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
- 35 of 66
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 13
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 22
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 17
- of 35 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: Wychavon LPA (52.164321, −2.051053). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Wychavon District Council appeal findings
Wychavon garage roofs and house extensions
Allowed appeal 82758 gives only a conclusion, so it cannot show why the Inspector accepted it.
Counted against appeals
Garage roof changes that jarred
Curved roof added too much bulk
In appeal 6616, the curved roof increased the garage’s height, bulk and mass and rose above the hedgerow, creating a discordant rural feature.
Conversion judged out of keeping
In appeal 72061, the Inspector concluded the garage conversion would harm its surroundings and not match their architectural characteristics.
Helped or needed
Extensions that integrated with surroundings
Guidance was not decisive
In appeal 86940, the Inspector found no area harm despite the proposal not following guidance on subordination and design breaks.
Extension matched its surroundings
In appeal 56927, the Inspector found the extension high quality, integrated with its surroundings and in keeping with the original property’s architectural characteristics.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify added roof height, bulk or mass?
- Does it explain why the design jars with your house?
- Does it say the proposal fails to integrate with surroundings?
The fence-and-planting scheme in appeal 82758 sits at the edge of the extension examples. 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
1 April 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a two storey side extension and rear single storey extension. Roof to front single storey to be removed and substituted with flat roof and railings to form access balcony (to include removal of chimney).
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
On that basis, I am satisfied that the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore conform with the relevant aspects of Policy SWDP21 of the South Worcestershire Development Pan which seek to ensure that development is well designed. I note that paragraph 8.3.2 of the Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) sets out that extensions should be subordinate to the host dwelling and that design breaks should be incorporated between the existing and proposed built form. I acknowledge that the proposal would not adhere to these considerations. However, the SPD is only guidance, and for the reasons given, I am satisfied that the design of the proposed development would conform with the overall thrust of the SPD which is to ensure that development proposals, including extensions, preserve character and appearance.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
15 January 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the replacement of ‘dilapidated former post & rail boundary fence with hit and miss timber fencing and native species boundary planting ([name])’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 25 · Source page 5
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal scheme would not harm the character and appearance of the area and accords with the development plan as a whole. Consequently, Appeal C should be allowed subject to the condition set out above.
Paragraph 37 · Source page 7
11 September 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a single storey rear, two storey side/front porch extensions and associated works.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and its surroundings.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude that the proposal, if built, would sit acceptably in its visual and spatial context without harming the character and appearance of the host property or the surrounding area. Accordingly, no material conflict arises with the main objectives of policy SWDP21 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan, since the extension is of a high quality design, integrating effectively with its surroundings, and in keeping with the architectural characteristics of the original property and its surroundings.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
2 examples
25 November 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘extend above existing garage to create home office and family accommodation.’
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Although the extended garage would appear subservient to the host dwelling, the proposed roof extension would significantly add to the height, bulk and massing of the existing flat roofed garage. The orientation of the proposed roof, the curved design and the resultant bulk and mass would be at odds with the appearance of the host dwelling. Furthermore, the visual relief appreciable to the side would be diminished by the introduction of the built form rising above the hedgerow. This harm would be exacerbated by the prominence of the proposed roof extension from views to the north and south of the site on the Road, resulting in a discordant feature within the rural setting. As such, the siting of the garage together with the height, bulk and massing of the roof design would detract from the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
30 June 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the conversion of existing garage with new roof over with room in roof space.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of its surroundings.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude that the proposal, if built, would harm the character and appearance of its surroundings. Accordingly, a material conflict arises with some of the main objectives of policy SWDP21 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan and policy NCD1 of the North Claines Neighbourhood Plan, since the proposal would fail to integrate effectively with its surroundings and would not be in keeping with its architectural characteristics.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2