Wychavon District Council appeal evidence
Refused over GPDO permitted development in Wychavon?
Learn which facts to compare with your refusal notice before reviewing GPDO evidence.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 5 of 66
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 2
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 3
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 1
- of 5 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
Agricultural proof, conversion work and Class AA appearance
Appeal 82372 is an edge-of-scope Class Q fallback comparison, not a direct GPDO decision.
Counted against appeals
Where GPDO claims fell short
External appearance failed Class AA
The conclusion says the first-floor proposal's external appearance meant it was not permitted development under Class AA.
Works amounted to rebuilding
The proposed works, starting from a minimal building, went substantially beyond conversion and amounted to rebuilding.
Part 6 evidence fell short
The Inspector found insufficient evidence that the Part 6 requirements had been met.
Helped or needed
What supported the allowed examples
Agricultural necessity was established
The barn was found reasonably necessary for its agricultural unit, bringing it within Part 6 Class A.
Class Q fallback carried weight
The existing Class Q fallback supported the scheme because its additional harm was judged modest.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify missing proof of agricultural use or need?
- Would the proposed works look like rebuilding rather than conversion?
- Does the refusal rely on external appearance under Class AA?
Appeal 68711 gives only a conclusion extract, so its earlier analysis is not shown. 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
2 February 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
Timber-clad agricultural barn.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • Whether the proposed development falls within the scope of permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the GPDO), with particular regard to whether it would be reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture within its agricultural unit; and, if so • Whether the siting, design and external appearance of the proposal is suitable, with particular regard as to whether it would preserve the significance of nearby heritage assets.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Given the above, I conclude that the proposed development would be reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture within its agricultural unit, and thus falls within the scope of permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A of the GPDO.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 3
6 January 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
new build dwelling to replace existing barn approved for residential conversion.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • whether or not the proposal would be a suitable location for residential development having regard to the spatial strategy of the development plan, and 1 Council reference: W/23/00549/GPDQ - Notification of prior approval for the proposed change of use of an agricultural building to a dwellinghouse. • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 5 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
Compared to the Class Q scheme, the proposed dwelling is not aligned with some of the technical aspects of Policy SWDP18 of the DP due to its greater size, slightly different position and the greater degree of domestication of the site. Nevertheless, the differences are relatively small, and the design of the proposal is not markedly inferior compared to the Class Q scheme. As such, although the proposed development would lead to a greater degree of harm to the character and appearance of the site and landscape compared to the existing building and the fallback position, in the context of its acceptable design, the additional harm would be modest. For these reasons, I afford the fallback position moderate weight in support of the appeal scheme.
Paragraph 19 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
30 April 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a proposed first floor to bungalow.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether or not the proposal would be permitted development pursuant to Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA of the GPDO, with reference to: • the effect of the development on the external appearance of the dwellinghouse; and • the impact of the proposal on the amenity of adjoining premises with regard to privacy and outlook.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Given my findings above with regard to the effect on the external appearance of the dwellinghouse, the proposal would not constitute permitted development under the terms of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA of the GPDO. Consequently, and having had regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed.
Paragraph 16 · Source page 3
17 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
change of use of an agricultural building to 2 dwellinghouses (Class C3), and for building operations reasonably necessary for the conversion.
Issue identified by the Inspector
Given the above, the main issues therefore are: • whether the building operations proposed would be reasonably necessary to convert the building to a use falling within Class C3; • whether the appeal site forms part of an established agricultural unit and, if the site is found to be part of an established agricultural unit with Springridge, whether the proposal would constitute permitted development in respect of Paragraph Q1(g) of the GPDO; and • if the proposal is found to constitute permitted development, whether prior approval would be required and should be granted.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Planning Practice Guidance identifies that it is not the intention of Class Q permitted development rights to allow rebuilding work which would go beyond what is reasonably necessary for the conversion of the building to residential use. Therefore, it is only where the existing building is already suitable for conversion to residential use that the building would be considered to have the permitted development right. In this regard, the works proposed are of such extent, and the starting point is so minimal, that the building operations proposed in this appeal would go substantially beyond a conversion and instead comprise a rebuilding of the existing structure.
Paragraph 17 · Source page 3
2 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as: “[name] for a new agricultural track”.
Issue identified by the Inspector
Based on the submissions provided, the dispute in this case centres around whether the proposal relates to land which is in agricultural use and whether the proposed access track is reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture. Therefore, the main issue is whether the proposed development would be granted planning permission by Article 3(1), Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the Order).
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Consequently, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the requirements applicable to Part 6 of the Order have been met. As such, the proposal is not permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A of the Order.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2