Appeal 3290783
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
proposed retention of front boundary wall and proposed new pedestrian and vehicle gates.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the retention of front boundary wall and proposed new pedestrian and vehicle gates at [site address] , Southgate [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 21/03584/HOU, dated 21 September 2021, and the plans submitted with it.
Section 03
Main Issue
I consider that the main issue is the effect of the wall and gates on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site is a detached two-storey house and the front boundary wall and gates subject to this appeal have already been erected. No 1A is located towards the southern end of the road close to the junction with Forestdale. Whilst the front boundaries to the dwellings to the north are mainly low walls and hedges. Toward the southern end of the road there are higher walls including the house opposite the appeal site, No 2 Forestdale which has a substantial brick wall along its boundary with [address] and the adjacent property to the appeal site, No 2B Forestdale has higher walls. I also note that there are a mix of taller boundary treatments to some properties further up [address] to the north.
Whilst the wall and gates are higher and more prominent than that of the neighbouring pair of semi-detached houses, Nos 1 and [address], to the north, No 1A relates more to the higher walls at the southern end of the road. In this context therefore, they do not appear unduly out of place.
The policies referred to in the reason for refusal all seek to achieve a high standard of design. London Plan1 policies D3 and D4 both relate to design with D3 advocating a design-led approach to development and D4 seeks to deliver good design. Core Strategy2 Policy 30 also requires all development to be of a high quality and be design-led, having special regard to their context. Development Management Document3 Policy DMD 8 sets out standard for new residential development and Policy DMD 37 also seeks to achieve high quality design.
Whilst a character of the area is that of low walls, there are a mix of boundary treatments and the position of the appeal site relates more to the higher walls immediately around it than the lower walls to the north. The topography of the road also affects the context of No 1A’s wall and gates in that it is located at the lower end of the road and so the wall and gates do not appear out of place when traversing up or down [address] from either the south or the north.
I have considered all matters raised but they do not alter my conclusion. I conclude that the wall and gates do not have a harmful effect on the character or appearance of the area and no conflict with the policies referred to above would arise. The appeal therefore succeeds.
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 226No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 22 March 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 28 February 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3290783
- Application reference
- 21/03584/HOU
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- London Borough of Enfield
- Planning authority code
- E09000010
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
- Allowed
- Decision category
- Allowed
- Received date
- 14 January 2022
- Valid date
- 14 January 2022
- Start date
- 28 January 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 12 November 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 22 March 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
- 12754
- 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