Appeal 3295856
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
7 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 retrospective application for the erection of trellis and fencing.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Procedural Matter
The trellis and fencing have been erected and therefore this is a retrospective scheme.
The description of development is taken from the decision notice and appeal form. In my view this more clearly and concisely describes the development and I have used it for my decision.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 05
Reasons
Pinewood is a detached property fronting [address] but has a lengthy side boundary to [address]. The erected fence runs the full length of this boundary sited on the back edge of the footpath and curves around to adjoin the front boundary wall.
Boundary treatments in the area vary but are generally formed of low brick walls and hedging demarking the front of properties. Where gardens adjoin [address] there are some close-boarded fences, however these are relatively standard 6ft fences (approximately 1.8m high) and are limited in length providing screening to the rear gardens. While the appeal fence panels are of a similar height they sit on a concrete plinth and have a deep trellis on top resulting in a substantial height which has an imposing presence. This is exacerbated by its substantial length, which as well as screening the rear garden extends to the front alongside the house and detached garage, with a significant step down in height to the front boundary wall.
Due to its corner position the boundary treatment is highly visible in views both along [address] and [address] and its stark appearance contrasts with the more open and verdant character of the area.
The fence colour is lighter than others in the vicinity but will undoubtedly weather in due course, and I acknowledge that existing fencing can be painted and replaced. However, fencing under permitted development rights is restricted to the height of the former fence or 1m adjacent to a highway1. The exact form and siting of the boundary treatment that existed prior to this new fence being erected is not clear from the information before me. Nonetheless, in my view the increased height creates an incongruous feature which has an adverse impact on the street scene.
Overall, I find that the boundary treatment is harmful to the character and appearance of the area and contrary to policy EE1 of the Runnymede 2030 Local Plan, which amongst other things, requires development to be well designed and take account of the existing character of the area.
Section 06
Other matters
I have taken into account the benefits that the proposal may bring in terms of increased privacy and security for the occupiers of the property, but this does not outweigh my concerns.
Section 07
Conclusion
For the reasons set out and having regard to all other matters raised the appeal is 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 362No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 31 August 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 22 August 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3295856
- Application reference
- RU.21/1613
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Runnymede Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000212
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
- 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 March 2022
- Valid date
- 29 March 2022
- Start date
- 26 April 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 4 January 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 31 August 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
- 20041
- 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