Skip to main content
Official casework recordDismissedCurrent release

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 works

One-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.

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. Section 05

    Main Issue

    The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the street scene.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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