Appeal 3301592
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 boundary fence – 1.6m max height
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Preliminary Matters
I have altered the description of the development in the banner heading from that on the application form and decision notice, to be more concise.
The fence that forms the subject of this appeal has been erected but, in terms of the details in the application, not yet finished. I have dealt with the appeal on that basis.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue in this case is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 05
Reasons
[site address] is a modern semi-detached property located adjacent to the junction of [address] and [name], close to the edge of the settlement. The surrounding area has a semi-rural character and nearby dwellings are of a variety of ages and styles. Boundary treatment along [address] varies but predominantly comprises mature hedging and/or low walls which contribute positively to the area’s character. [name] boundary treatments are predominantly fencing. That fencing is generally low where it bounds a pavement and higher between properties and away from the road.
The fence which is the subject of this appeal is constructed in timber and increases in height from 1m at the junction of the two roads to 1.6m at the side. It sits immediately at the back of the footpath and extends around a curve in the road to the rear of the property where there is a close boarded fence of a similar height. I understand that the fence replaced an earlier one although there are no details of that original fence before me. It is proposed to complete the fence with a black stain to match the fence/gate at the rear of the property. In addition, the application form indicates that additional lats are to be fixed to the fence to match fencing at the rear. I noted at my site visit that an evergreen hedge has been planted behind the fence and can be seen through it.
The fence, because of its height, length and position at the back of the footpath close to the road junction, is highly prominent within the street scene and can be seen for a distance along [address]. In its current state the fence appears as a prominent and stark urban feature that fails to respect the semi-rural characteristics of the wider area. Viewed from within [name], the fence has a dominant, imposing effect, and is more enclosing than the low fencing which generally borders the street. Once additional lats are fixed to the fence it would have a more solid appearance. Accordingly, if the development were to be completed in that respect it would appear even more imposing than it currently is.
I recognise that being a corner plot, the side boundary needs to be made secure and accessible and, in that respect, the gated fence is of benefit to the appellant. However, I am unconvinced that a similar benefit could not be achieved by a different arrangement which did not harm the character and appearance of the area. I also accept that once the fence is stained a dark colour as is proposed, its appearance would change. Nevertheless, because of its position, height and length along [name], the fence would still appear as an imposing and prominent feature out of character with the wider area. [name] acknowledge the appellant’s point that the hedge is of a similar height, it has different, softer, and more natural character to that of the fencing and therefore a different effect on the appearance of the street. Accordingly, this does not justify the proposal.
For these reasons the proposal has a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. As such it fails to comply with the Policy HP3 of the Harrogate District Local Plan adopted in 2020 which requires that development should protect, enhance and reinforce those qualities that contribute to the local distinctiveness of the district’s urban and rural environment, by taking account, amongst other things, of the spatial qualities of an area and its built form. There are no other circumstances before me which indicate that planning permission should be granted contrary to adopted policy.
Therefore, taking into account all other maters 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 724No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 7 March 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 10 February 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3301592
- Application reference
- 22/00506/FUL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Harrogate Borough Council *
- Planning authority code
- E07000165
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
- No
- Historic building grant made
- No
- Relates to a conservation area
- No
- Flooding is an issue
- No
- Site within an AONB
- No
- Site within an SSSI
- No
Decision and dates
The published outcome and every imported case date.
- Official decision
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 21 June 2022
- Valid date
- 21 June 2022
- Start date
- 4 July 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 5 April 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 7 March 2023
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
- 29364
- 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