Appeal 3293843
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 boundary fence to a maximum height of 1.95m.
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 streetscene
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property is situated in a prominent position opposite the junction with [address]. The area is predominantly residential comprising dwellings that vary in terms of their age, appearance. Boundary treatments at the front of the dwellings also vary, but they are generally low walls, low fences or hedging.
The proposal (which is retrospective) is to retain an existing close boarded timber fence along the site frontage. The fence has been stained a dark grey colour and it has replaced a conifer hedge. It is set-back slightly from the pavement with some planting having been undertaken at intervals in front of the fence. The appellant points to the existence of other fences in the locality and also the need to provide a secure boundary for young children who attend the premises in connection with her childminding business. I have also taken into account the support given to the proposal by third parties.
Policy SP10 of the adopted East Lindsey Local Plan 2018 (LP) seeks (amongst other things) to ensure that new development is well designed and enhances the character of the area. This accords with Paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework), which requires developments to add to the overall quality of the area, be visually attractive and sympathetic to local character.
I accept that conifer hedges are not always aesthetically pleasing and that it may have obstructed the pavement and blocked visibility for drivers emerging from the property. However, notwithstanding the planting that has taken place, the appeal fencing is a somewhat stark and unduly prominent structure that appears at odds and out of context with its surroundings, because of its height, length and close proximity to the road frontage. In my opinion, it detracts from the streetscene and, in that regard, it conflicts with Policy SP10 of the LP and with The Framework, as referred to above.
In reaching my decision, I have taken into account the requirement to provide a secure and safe environment for young children. However, this could be provided in other ways by, for example, a different type of fence in a different position.
I have also had regard to the other fences in the area that have been referred to by the appellant. However, whilst some of these may be comparable, I have assessed the appeal development in relation to the streetscene in which it forms a part and, in that context, the fencing is at significantly at odds with its surroundings.
Section 05
Conclusion
For the reasons given above, it is concluded that the appeal 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 203No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 5 October 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 6 September 2021 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3293843
- Application reference
- N/031/01993/21
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- East Lindsey District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000137
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
- 2. Refused permission to vary or remove a condition(s)
- Appeal reason
- Appeal Against Conditions
- Type detail
- Unknown
- 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
- Not recorded
- 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
- 15 February 2022
- Valid date
- 10 March 2022
- Start date
- 14 March 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 3 December 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 5 October 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
- 21484
- 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