Appeal 3272883
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
9 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
the re-alignment of a garden wall.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and unconditional planning permission is granted for the re-alignment of a garden wall at [site address] , Arnold, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of application ref: 2020/1162, dated 14 November 2020.
Section 03
Appeal Procedure
The site visit was undertaken by an Appeal Planning Officer whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.
Section 04
[name]
The wall that is the subject of this appeal has already been constructed. I have dealt with the appeal on that basis.
Section 05
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the street scene.
Section 06
Reasons for the Recommendation
The appeal site comprises a detached two-storey dwelling located on a corner plot at the junction of [address] and [address]. While the area is largely characterised by open front gardens, due to the layout of the estate there are a number of dwellings with rear gardens than are adjacent to the highway and these gardens are enclosed with high brick walls. A large proportion of these walls contain timber panels between the brickwork, although timber fencing alone and walls that are solely constructed of brick are also present in the vicinity of the appeal site. Overall the area has an open, green and attractive appearance and character and the occasional presence of higher enclosures surrounding those rear gardens does not significantly undermine that character.
The garden wall at the appeal property abuts the pavement to the side of the property, which is not uncommon for boundary walls in the area, and is topped with decorative detailing using darker bricks and cement. The wall is of a similar height to the other walls in the street with the height of the wall changing slightly to follow the slope of the street. The wall does not have timber panels similar to other walls in the immediate area, however if timber panels are not properly maintained then they can look untidy and detract from the appearance of the street. [name] appreciate that timber insets can break up the apparent mass of a wall and provide visual interest, in this case, the wall covers a short stretch of the garden and the wall does not present a lengthy expanse of brickwork. For these reasons, the wall as built complements the character and appearance of the area and blends in with the existing boundary treatments in the street scene.
I understand that an area of soft landscaping and vegetation was removed when the wall was erected. However, this vegetation could have been cut down or removed at any time. Furthermore, the removal of this area of landscaping and the erection of the wall has not significantly affected the green and open character of the street, with gardens remaining to the front and rear of the structure.
I therefore conclude that the proposal does not cause harm to the appearance and character of the street scene. The proposal subsequently accords with Policy 10 of the aligned [name] 1 Local Plan (September 2014) which requires development to make a positive contribution to the sense of place, with particular regard for massing, scale and materials. The proposal also complies with the design aims of section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
Section 07
Conditions
The appeal proposal is retrospective and the wall has already been constructed in accordance with the submitted plans and details. Consequently, a condition requiring compliance with the submitted plans, or any other condition, would be unnecessary.
Section 08
Conclusion
For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed and planning permission granted unconditionally.
Section 09
Inspector’s Decision
I have considered all the submitted evidence and the Appeal Planning Officer’s report and, on that basis, agree with the recommendation and shall allow the appeal and grant planning permission unconditionally. [planning inspector] 2
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 211No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 9 December 2021Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 9 August 2021 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3272883
- Application reference
- 2020/1162
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Gedling Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000173
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
- 0 m²
- Number of residences
- 0
- 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
- 12 April 2021
- Valid date
- 12 April 2021
- Start date
- 8 June 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 12 February 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 9 December 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
- 7289
- 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