Appeal 3290295
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
4 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
a new front wall and gate ‘part retrospective’.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of [address].
Section 04
Reasons
I saw on my visit that the character and appearance of this part of [address] is in large measure derived from the set back of the dwellings from the road on its eastern side and the presence of extensive open plan grass frontages. Whilst there are some hedges, shrubs and trees in front of some of the properties, these for the most part have a low profile and in any event make a positive contribution to the informal green areas.
However, the partially constructed walls (which are intended to provide a frame for the inclusion of grey horizontal fencing) and the hardstanding for parking project forward of the neighbouring boundary walls to within a footpath’s width of the road.
Although not yet complete, this structure is wholly alien to the pleasingly green and rural character of [address]. And with its height and formal enclosure of the frontage of No. 36 the structure would draw the eye as an inappropriate intrusion into the open, informal and green area that forms an essential element of this side of the road.
I have noted the comments in the officer’s report as to the position of the proposed gates being an acceptable projection in an amended proposal. However, as the report says, ‘this would still give rise to a prominent feature’ compared with that of the adjoining properties. I agree with this reservation and consider that in comparison with the neighbouring frontages it is both the more urban and modernist form of the proposal in terms of wall height, design and any noticeable forward projection that would cause significant harm to the street scene.
For these reasons the development would be in harmful conflict with Policy 15 of the Adur District Plan 2017 and Government policy in Section 12: ‘[name] of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021.
The appeal is therefore 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 204No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 25 February 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 17 February 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3290295
- Application reference
- AWDM/1707/21
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Adur District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000223
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
- 7 January 2022
- Valid date
- 7 January 2022
- Start date
- 27 January 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 23 November 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 25 February 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
- 11295
- 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