Skip to main content
Official casework recordDismissedCurrent release

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 works

One-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

  1. Section 02

    Decision

    The appeal is dismissed.

  2. 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.

  3. Section 04

    Main Issue

    The main issue in this case is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.

  4. 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