Appeal 3287959
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 a 1.[address] boarded fence to inside of existing 0.5m brick boundary wall.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Character and appearance
The application is for retrospective permission for a 1.[address] boarded fence along the boundary of the curtilage of No [site address] . No 90, a bungalow, has an unusual long rectangular garden to one side, extending to the corner of [address]. The 1.8 m fence thus runs the length of the long [address] frontage, immediately behind a low wall, before turning the corner to run along the shorter [address] frontage of the property.
Whilst there are a variety of boundary treatments in this well-established residential area, and the appellant draws attention to a number of tall close boarded fences, most frontage boundaries including those opposite the site consist of hedges or low brick walls, sometimes low walls with hedges behind and sometimes hedges with fences behind.
In this case the 1.8 m fence runs immediately behind the low wall along [address] which itself runs along the back edge of the footway. This leaves no space for a hedge or any vegetation in front to soften its visual impact. Similarly, the fence along [address] runs immediately behind the grass verge and although some planting has been put in place here there is negligible non-highway land for it to have a significant mitigating effect.
[name] 90 occupies a prominent corner plot with the tall 1.[address] boarded fence running along two boundaries, joining at a road junction, with no significant landscaping along either frontage, the fence as erected is particularly intrusive in the street scene. Whilst there are other unscreened fences in the area, such as that separating Nos [address], this does not justify a further erosion of a relatively verdant neighbourhood.
For these reasons the fence as erected causes significant harm to the character and appearance of the area in conflict with Policies ENV1 and ENV2 of the East Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2015. These require the edge treatment of proposals to be complementary to existing development and seek to secure high quality design which has regard to local context.
Section 05
Conclusion
It is appreciated that the fence provides a private and safe environment for the residents of the property when using the garden as supported by Chapter 8 of the National Planning Policy Framework. It is also recognised that the property is in the unusual position of having no private rear garden. However, these factors do not outweigh the harm to the character and appearance of the street scene and the resulting conflict with the development plan.
Having regard to the above 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 1064No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 11 April 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 29 March 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3287959
- Application reference
- 21/01016/FUL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- East Cambridgeshire District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000009
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
- 29 November 2021
- Valid date
- 29 November 2021
- Start date
- 22 December 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 21 September 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 11 April 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
- 13800
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:26
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21