Appeal 3292856
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
a new 1.5m high red brick wall to replace existing fence on north-east boundary.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a new 1.5m high red brick wall to replace existing fence on north-east boundary at Dowers, 1 Cherry Tree Barns, Cherry Green, Westmill, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 3/21/0549/HH, dated 3 March 2021, subject to the following conditions:
The development hereby permitted shall begin no later than 3 years from the date of this decision.
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 2003-01; 2003-02; 2003-04; and 2003-04 ([name]).
The wall hereby approved shall be constructed of red brick to match that used on parts of the existing dwelling and outbuildings.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the site and its surroundings, including the effect on the setting of the host dwelling, Dowers.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site is within a complex of dwellings that are situated in open countryside. The complex comprises barn conversions, together with the appeal property, which was a newly constructed dwelling built around 2003. The complex of buildings is adjacent to a listed building, Cherry Green Farmhouse and it forms part of the setting of the heritage asset.
Whilst the former barns are curtilage listed, the appellant points to the fact that as the appeal property is a relatively new dwelling, it is not curtilage listed as it is not fixed to the principal building and was constructed after 1 July 1948. I have no reason to refute this.
The proposal is to construct a 1.5m high brick wall to replace an existing post and rail fence, which is infilled with wicker panels. The new wall would be positioned along the north-east boundary of the garden, with a small section returning along its south-eastern side.
The Council contends that the proposed wall would be harmful to the rural character of the wider farmstead and the setting of the appeal dwelling. It states that the development would conflict with Policies DES4 and HA1 of the adopted East Herts District Plan 2018 (DP). Amongst other things, these policies seek to achieve a high standard of design that reflects local character and distinctiveness and preserve and enhance the historic environment of [name]. In my opinion, these policies are consistent with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021 (The Framework).
In reaching my decision, I have taken into account the position of the appeal site in relation to the adjoining open countryside. However, the proposed brick wall would be a relatively minor form of development that would not be highly visible from outside of the site.
I also noted at my site visit that there are other brick walls within the complex of buildings and, in that regard, the proposal would not be out of context with the group of buildings in which it is located. Furthermore, there would be no impact on the setting of the principal listed building, Cherry Green Farmhouse, because of the separation distance and intervening buildings. Given that Dowers is a modern property with some small areas of brickwork used on the walls the proposed wall appear out of context or out of character with the appeal dwelling itself. Views into the site would also be retained because of the relatively low height of the proposed wall.
For the above reasons, I consider that the proposal would not be out of character with the area, nor would it have an adverse effect on the setting of any nearby buildings. Consequently, the proposal would not conflict with the provisions of the DP or with The Framework, as referred to above.
Section 05
Conditions
The Council has suggested conditions in the event of the appeal being allowed. In addition to the standard conditions relating to the time period in which to commence the development and listing the approved plans, I have also imposed a condition requiring that the bricks match those used on parts of the existing dwelling and outbuildings.
For the reasons given above, it is concluded that the appeal be allowed.
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 203No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 8 July 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 14 June 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3292856
- Application reference
- 3/21/0549/HH
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- East Hertfordshire District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000242
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
- 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
- 15 February 2022
- Valid date
- 15 February 2022
- Start date
- 3 March 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 1 December 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 8 July 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
- 17537
- 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