Wychavon District Council appeal evidence
Refused over Green Belt development in Wychavon?
See the Green Belt harms cited locally and the separate countryside issue in the allowed example.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 7 of 66
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 1
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 6
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 3
- of 7 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
How selected Wychavon schemes harmed Green Belt openness
The allowed extract says the scheme was not inappropriate in the Green Belt, but does not explain why and focuses on a separate countryside development-strategy conflict.
Counted against appeals
How schemes harmed Green Belt openness
Screening failed when planting lost leaves
The garage would rise above the fence and be more visible when trees and hedges were not in leaf, harming visual and spatial openness.
Garden boundaries did not prevent visual sprawl
The boundaries contained the site spatially, but a new dwelling would still create unacceptable visual sprawl and greater visual impact on openness.
No exception or special justification
A cited summary found no listed exception and gave substantial weight to Green Belt harm. A conclusion found other considerations did not clearly outweigh it.
Helped or needed
What the allowed example records
Not inappropriate in the Green Belt
The cited extract treats the scheme as not inappropriate in the Green Belt. It does not show the evidence behind that finding.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify visual or spatial harm to Green Belt openness?
- Does it say the proposal misses a Green Belt exception?
- Does it explain why other considerations outweigh every stated harm?
The allowed Wychavon extract gives a Green Belt conclusion, not the evidence used to reach it. 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
23 March 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
construction of a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 4 dwellings.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are whether the location, the proposed land use and the amount of development is suitable, with particular regard to: • whether the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) (the Framework), taking into account the effect on the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land within it; • whether the proposal would provide an appropriate level of affordable housing; • whether the proposed development would provide a suitable location for the proposal, having regard to the development strategy for the area and accessibility to services and facilities; and • if the development is inappropriate, would the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
The appeal site lies outside, albeit immediately adjacent to, the adopted settlement boundary and is therefore within the open countryside for the purposes of Policy SWDP 2. The proposal would introduce new dwellings in this location, and it does not fall within any of the exceptions identified in Policy SWDP 2, nor is it supported by any other policy of the SWDP that permits new housing in the open countryside. [name] recognise that the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, that finding does not override the requirement for the scheme to accord with the development strategy. Accordingly, it would conflict with the development strategy for the area.
Paragraph 25 · Source page 5
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
17 June 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
replacement garaging.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) and any relevant development plan policies • the effect on the openness of the Green Belt • if the development is inappropriate, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposed garage would be located close to the roadside behind existing trees, a hedgerow and the fencing between this dwelling and [address]. The roof would be taller than the fence and would be visible from [site address] . The trees and hedgerows could be allowed to grow to be taller and thus provide additional screening, but the effect would be considerably less when they were not in leaf. Consequently, due to its scale and siting, the proposal would harm the visual openness of the Green Belt. Furthermore, by introducing a large structure into a currently undeveloped area, it would also harm openness in spatial terms.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
4 November 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
demolition of existing outbuildings and erection of a garden office and subterranean garage and workshop.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) and any other relevant development plan documents; and • if the development is inappropriate, whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would be inappropriate development and would harm the openness of the Green Belt. Paragraph 148 of the Framework specifies that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt and that very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt is clearly outweighed by other considerations. The other considerations in this case do not clearly outweigh the totality of the harm identified. Consequently, the very special circumstances needed to justify the proposal do not exist. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policy SWDP 2 of the Development Plan and the Framework.
Paragraph 19 · Source page 4
21 January 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
proposed new dwelling.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: whether the proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt including its effect on openness and the purposes of including land within it, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies; whether the appeal site is a suitable location for the proposed development; whether the proposed development provides an adequate contribution to affordable housing; and whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Whilst the appeal site is currently residential garden and does benefit from clear boundaries, there is not a significant frontage of built form along [address] and thus an absence of a street elevation pattern. The boundaries which currently contain the site would, in my planning judgement, prevent unacceptable harm regarding the spatial aspect of the Green Belt. However, to my mind, it would remain that the introduction of the appeal scheme would result in an unacceptable sprawl of built form in visual terms. Therefore, in my judgement, it would have more of an impact on openness of the Green Belt in visual terms than the existing circumstances.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
27 February 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
No verified development description was available for this example.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the location, land use, and the amount of development proposed are appropriate at this site, with particular regard to: • the level of accessibility; • the effect on the character and appearance of the area; and • whether or not very special circumstances exist for development in the Green Belt.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In summary, the proposed development does not meet any of the exceptions listed in paragraphs 154 and 155 of the Framework. The proposal is therefore inappropriate development in the Green Belt, which by definition is harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances, as stated in paragraph 153 of the Framework. In addition to the harm to the Green Belt by virtue of its inappropriateness, the proposed development would also result in harm to the openness of the Green Belt. In accordance with paragraph 153 of the Framework, I give substantial weight to each of these harms.
Paragraph 36 · Source page 6