Appeal 3285192
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
5 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 erection of 2m high fence at the top of the back garden of my home address which will be adjacent to the highway.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property has a rear garden that rises steeply to meet [address] on its northern boundary. The proposed development would result in a 15m long [address] boarded fence being erected.
There is currently a concrete post and tubular metal fence at about 1.2m in height that runs along the rear boundary of [site address] as well as along the boundaries of several neighbouring properties. This fence would remain on the road-side of the proposed fence.
As well as the tubular fence there are a number of wooden fences in the vicinity on the same side of the road and also a low stone wall surmounted by a decorative metal railing. The wooden fences are generally lower in height than that proposed but there is one section, to the east of the appeal property, that is higher. In general however, the existing fences are only slightly higher than the tubular fencing and this goes some way to mitigate their visual impact.
On the opposite side of [address] there is a stone built property directly abutting the road and to the east of this a stone wall. [address] itself is within the [address] Conservation Area (CA).
The proposed fence would draw the eye and be very noticeable as it would be directly opposite the stone built property and would be higher than the fencing on either side, and higher than the tubular fencing. To my mind it would be a stark and harsh addition to the street scene. It would therefore conflict with policy NH13 of the West Somerset Local Plan to 2032 (LP). This policy seeks to ensure that new development meets the highest standards of design and responds positively to the local context.
While it is debatable whether the fence would actually be within the CA it would nonetheless impact upon its setting, and policy NH1 of the LP makes clear that proposals will be supported that sustain or enhance the settings of heritage assets. This would not be the case and consequently there would also be conflict with policy NH1.
In arriving at this conclusion I have taken into account the existence of the existing wooden fencing, particularly the existing taller fence. However, from the information before me this section of fencing has not received planning permission. Furthermore it does not contribute to sustaining the setting of the CA. [name] do not consider its existence as forming a compelling precedent for allowing the current appeal.
Section 05
Conclusion
For the above reasons, and having taken into account all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.
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 104No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 28 January 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 25 January 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3285192
- Application reference
- 3/21/21/070
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Somerset West and Taunton *
- Planning authority code
- E07000246
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
- 19 October 2021
- Valid date
- 19 October 2021
- Start date
- 22 December 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 23 September 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 28 January 2022
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
- No
- 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
- 9616
- 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