Appeal 3287148
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 removal of hedge and construction of 1.2m high feather edge fence to the front boundary of property (retrospective).
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and retrospective planning permission is granted for the removal of hedge and construction of 1.2m high feather edge fence to the front boundary of [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 21/04596/FU, dated 29 March 2021 and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following condition:
Within 3 months of the date of this permission the fence shall be treated/painted/stained in a neutral colour, details of which shall first be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Section 03
Main Issue
This is the effect of the fence on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
[address] forms part of a wider planned estate development characterised by pairs of generously spaced semi-detached houses. The set-back of the dwellings behind front gardens and grass verges lends the area a spacious and leafy suburban character. Despite that, [address] is not subject to any formal townscape designation and I would be hard-pressed to describe it as particularly sensitive or remarkable.
In terms of front boundary treatments, it is undoubtedly true that the street scene contains a preponderance of hedges. Nonetheless, as I saw at the time of my visit, many properties have removed the hedges and replaced them with timber fences1, low stone walls2 and in some cases open-fronted driveways3. This has evidently eroded the distinctiveness of [address] over time and 1 For example, Nos 5 and 60 2 For example, Nos 3, 4, 6, 8, 15, 21, 26, 28, 38, 42 and 44 3 For example, Nos 58, 21 and 22 means that there is a lack of uniformity with regard to front boundary treatments.
Of course, the removal of the hedge, which appears to be the Council’s main concern did not require planning permission in any event. Nor for that matter would the erection of a timber fence (up to 1m in height) under permitted development rights. Put another way, the Council’s allegation of ‘detrimental harm’ can only really apply to the top 20cm of the fence, since everything else did not require planning permission. That is clearly not a tenable position on the Council’s part.
The visual impact of the fence could be reduced if it were to be painted a neutral colour. I have imposed a planning condition accordingly. Subject to that condition, I am satisfied that the fence would not cause unacceptable harm to the host property or wider street scene and there would be no conflict with Policy GP5 of the [name] (2006), Core Strategy Policy P10 or Householder Design Guide Policy HDG1.
Section 05
Conclusion
The planning conditions suggested by the Council are unnecessary as the development has already been carried out.
For the reasons given above and taking into account all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should succeed.
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 2453No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 6 January 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 20 December 2021 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3287148
- Application reference
- 21/04596/FU
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Leeds City Council
- Planning authority code
- E08000035
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
- 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
- Allowed
- Decision category
- Allowed
- Received date
- 17 November 2021
- Valid date
- 17 November 2021
- Start date
- 19 November 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 7 September 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 6 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
- 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
- 8504
- 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