Appeal 3270798
Public case and site metadata stored from the official casework database, including fields that were empty in the source release.
A clearer next step
See how Inspectors approached issues like yours
Bring your planning decision into a private workspace. We separate the disputed points, then match them with source-located Inspector reasoning from similar appeals.
- See which issues the decision appears to turn on
- Compare the facts and open the full appeal records
One private comparison
How the refusal review worksOne-off service · No subscription
Similar appeals are evidence to inspect, not a prediction of your outcome.
Official decision document
The decision, section by section
4 sections
Read the development description and the Inspector’s text from the official decision PDF in source order. Source headings are retained where available. Personal and contact details are removed by an automated privacy filter; this is source material, not Rules for You analysis.
Section 01
Development description
to erect a fence around the garden boundary of the property
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
I consider the main issue to be the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the existing site and surrounding area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property is an end of terrace dwelling which lies on a corner plot adjacent to an amenity space in a primarily residential area. The area is characterised by dwellings of similar scale and design. A number of the dwellings surround the amenity space, which is a focal point of this group of dwellings. Many front gardens have low fences on their boundaries, and end of terrace dwellings predominantly have red brick walls alongside the rear gardens.
The fence is already constructed. It is a 1.[address] boarded fence. It is positioned on the edge of the side boundary of this corner premises and includes a small section of fence across to the front of the dwelling. Fences of this height and length are not a characteristic in this part of the streetscene. I note that a side brick wall has been removed and the fence has extended the enclosed rear garden to include the previously open area.
The appeal property is on a prominent corner location with the full extent of the side fence visible from many properties surrounding the amenity area. From my observations, in this prominent position, due to its length, height, design and location it appears as an unacceptable and incongruous addition to the streetscene, not in keeping with the character and appearance of the existing site and surrounding area. This harm is exacerbated by the prominent location on a corner plot adjacent to the amenity space.
In reaching my conclusion I have had regard to all matters raised including the need for privacy, safety and security. These are material considerations. However, I do not consider the development to be the only way of ensuring that these needs can be met. I have been referred to an example of side fencing elsewhere. That site is in a materially different location in that it is not adjacent to the amenity space and is not in such a prominent position. Therefore, I do not consider it to be directly comparable to the development on the appeal site, which I have determined on its individual merits.
For the reasons stated above, I conclude that the development has an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the existing site and surrounding area. Thus, the development is contrary to Policies D1 and H4 in the Maldon District Local Development Plan (2017), where they seek to ensure that development respects and enhances the character and local context.
Since the Council made its decision, the National Planning Policy Framework has been revised. It continues to seek high standards of design. I consider the development plan policies referred to above to be broadly consistent with the Framework, especially where the Framework seeks to ensure good design.
Planning inspector and document dates
The official casework attribution is grouped under a one-way keyed hash and shown only by its local identifier. Decision-letter dates and page references are extracted by fixed first-page rules and checked against that authoritative record.
Appeal Decision
- Extracted inspector · page 1
- Inspector attribution ID 1172No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 8 November 2021Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 2 November 2021 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3270798
- Application reference
- HOUSE/MAL/20/00161
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Maldon District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000074
Casework details
The casework, procedure, development and linking details supplied by the official record.
- Casework type
- Householder (HAS)
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development type
- Householder developments
- Appeal type reason
- 1. Refused planning permission
- Appeal reason
- Refusal
- Type detail
- Planning Appeals - Full
- Jurisdiction
- Transferred
- Link status
- Not Linked
Site and development
Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.
- Site area
- Not recorded
- Floor space
- Not recorded
- Number of residences
- 1
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- No
- Affects setting of a listed building
- Not recorded
- Historic building grant made
- Not recorded
- Relates to a conservation area
- Not recorded
- Flooding is an issue
- Not recorded
- Site within an AONB
- Not recorded
- Site within an SSSI
- Not recorded
Decision and dates
The published outcome and every imported case date.
- Official decision
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 11 March 2021
- Valid date
- 25 March 2021
- Start date
- 26 May 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 16 February 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 8 November 2021
Case administration
Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.
- Redetermined
- No
- Bespoke
- No
- Date recovered
- Not recorded
- Date not recovered or derecovered
- Not recorded
- Call-in date
- Not recorded
- Costs applied for
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds count
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds
- Not recorded
Source and catalogue history
When this record appeared in the rolling official release and when the catalogue stored it.
- Source
- Planning Inspectorate casework database
- Source data system
- Horizon
- Dataset status
- Current release
- Catalogue record ID
- 5686
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:25
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21